AN 


EXPOSITION    OF    EVIDENCE 

IN  SUPPORT  OF  THE 

MEMORIAL    TO    CONGRESS 

M  SETTING    FORTH    THE    EVILS    OF    THE    EXISTING    TARIFF    OF    DUTIES,    AND    ASKING 

SUCH    A    MODIFICATION    OF    THE    SAME,    AS    SHALL    BE    CONSISTENT    WITH 

THE"  FURPOSES   OF    REVENUE,    AND    EQUAL    IN    ITS    OPERATION    ON 

THE    DIFFERENT   PARTS    OF    THE    UNITED    STATES,    AND 

ON   THE   VARIOUS   INTERESTS    OF   THE 

SAME." 

PREPARED 

IN  PURSUANCE  OF  INSTRUCTIONS 
FROM   THE 

PERMANENT    COMMITTEE 

APPOINTED    BY    THE 

FREE    TRADE     CONVENTION 

ASSEMBLED  AT  PHILADELPHIA 
TO  PREPARE  THE 

MEMORIAL  TO  CONGRESS. 


BY    HENRY    LEE,    OF    MASSACHUSETTS, 

ONE    OF    THE    COMMITTEE. 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED  AT  THE  BOSTON  PRESS,  WATER-ST. 

1832. 


No.  4 

TAXES  ON  WOOLLENS  AND  IRON. 


TAX    ON    WOOLLENS. 

As  the  discussion  of  this  important  item  in  the  Tariff,  as  well  as 
that  of  iron,  wool  and  hemp,  has  been  assigned  to  another  member 
of  the  Committee,  who  is  able  to  do  each  of  them  ample  justice  by- 
displaying  all  their  evil  consequences — we  shall  confine  our  remarks 
on  this  article,  chiefly  to  the  amount  of  direct  and  indirect  taxation 
imposed  on  the  nation,  for  the  benefit  of  the  small  portion  of  the 
woollen  manufacturers  who  depend  on  extreme  duties"  for  their 
support. 

The  importations  of  woollens  since  1821  are  as  follows — 

1821, 7,600,000 

1822, 12,200,000 

1823, 8,300,000 

1824, 8,200,000 

1825, 10,900.000 

1826, 7,900,000 

1827, 8,200,000 

1828, 7,900,000 

1829, 6,300,000 

1830, 5,800,000 


10  years,  $83,300,000 

The  exportation  of  woollens  is  very  small,  varying  from  200,000 
to  400,000  dollars  per  annum,  and  cannot  exceed  3  millions  in  10 
years,  which  would  make  the  prime  cost  of  those  actually  con- 
sumed, 8,000,000  dollars  per  annum. 

The  duty  on  woollens  under  the  act  of  1789  was  5  per  cent. 
It  was  subsequently  advanced  to 7,  to  \'2\,  and,  during  the  war, to  27£ 
per  cent.,  wholly  however  for  revenue,  and  for  no  other  purpose.  In 
1816, on  the  adjustment  of  the  various  claims  that  were  put  forward  by 
those  who  had  interests  which  had  grown  up  under  the  war  prices, 
it  was  thought  just  to  give  the  manufacturers  of  woollens  25  per 
cent.; — to  fall,  however,  in  three  years  to  20 percent.  But  before  that 


88  as 


2 

period  expired,*  a  further  time  of  seven  years  was  allowed  for  a  reduc- 
tion of  the  duty  to  20  per  cent.,  and  during  that  interval  the  act  ot 
l^J  I  was  passed,  bv  which  the  duty  was  raised  to  33^ per  cent. 

The  manufacturers,  not  content  with  this  duty,  which,  added  to 
the  common  importing  charges,  gave  them  a  protection  against  the 
foreign  fabric  of  at  least  55  per  cent.,  again  demanded  more 
duties,  which  they  obtained  by  the  act  of  1828,  granting  them  rates 
of  45  to  150  per  cent.,  and  rising  generally  on  the  articles  in  pro- 
portion to  their  coarseness;  thus  taxing  the  people,  not  in  pro- 
portion to  their  wealth,  but  to  their  want  of  it — one  of  the  most 
prominent  features  of  what  is  termed  the  "American  System." 

The  duties,  then,  within  the  period  of  ten  years  for  which  we 
have  given  the  amount  of  importations,  range  from  25  per  cent,  ad 
valorem,  or  27 h  on  the  cost,  up  to  their  present  rates  of  45  to  150 
per  cent.  It  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  many  goods  will  bear  the 
extreme  rates  of  duty  which  are  established,  and  we  shall  therefore 
call  the  average  of  die  duties  actually  collected,  under  the  existing 
act,  GO  per  cent.,  though  this  is  probably  below  what  has  been  actually 
paid.  We  have  before  us  statements  from  importers  who  have  paid 
from  80  to  100  per  cent,  on  this  year's  importations. 

If,  then,  we  take  the  average  duty  at  45 per  cent,  on  the  last  ten 
years'  importations  of  woollens  actually  consumed,  amounting  to 
80,000,000  dollars,  the  result  will  show  a  protection  in  the  form 
of  a  revenue  tax,  of  30,000,000  dollars  ;  to  which  20 per  cent,  being 
added  for  charges  of  importation,  will  make  the  whole  protection 

*  Tims,  within  the  period  of  two  years,  there  was  a  gross  violation,  on  the  part  of  the  man- 
pfacturing  capitalists  (the  only  class  who  can  gain  by  this  system),  of  that  implied  under- 
stao  ling,  on  which  the  ad  of  1816  was  supported  by  the  representatives  of  the  non-manu- 
facturing States.  That  measure  was  asked  for  as  affording  a  moderate  and  temporary  pro- 
tection to  certain  valuable  interest*,  which  must  otherwise  have  been  involved  in  ruin — and 
nut  as  justificatory  of  the  principle  now  conten  led  for,  that  an  interchange  of  our  agricul- 
tural staple-,  with  such  foreign  nations  as  arc  in  want  of  them,  may,  at  any  time,  be  justly 
and  legally  prohibited  bj  Congress,  whenever  it  can  he  made  to  appear  advantageous  to 
j,  i!  i  icular  sections,  and  to  particular  <  las  es ; — for  this  is  the  doctrine,  on  which  the  "  Amer- 
i  an  System  "  is  sustained  \>\  its  leading  advocates. 

Tli.'  acl  of  lslti  may  lie  considere  I,  from  tlie  general  support  it  received  in  various  sections 

of  the  country,  a-  a  national  mi  asuri  :  but  li iking  innovations  upon  it,  there  have  been 

exhibited,  upon  the  verj  face  of  the  proceedings,  both  in  and  out  of  Congress,  tlie  strongest 
mil  kaof  faction  and  intrigue.  The  act  of  1828  was  bo  grossly  unjust,  that  it  has  been  denounced 

even  i>\  itaadvocati  >,  as  having  been  dial estlj  obtained,  and  as  being  whollj  incompetent  to 

the  purposei  for  which  it  was  in  ten  lei.  It  i,  surprisiug,  therefore,  that  either  the  act  of  1S24 
or  of  TO28  should  be  claimed  as  furnishing  any  decisive  indication  of  the  national  sen- 
timent ,  since  the  to  -i  h  a  -  carried  by  a  majoi  it\  of  <>i>hi  one  vote,  and  the  latter  l>\  a  ma- 
jority of  three  votes,  though  there  probabrj  \mh-  50  or  60  manufacturers,  or  the  dependants 
<>i  manufacturers,  in  Congress,  u ho  went  to  that  assembly  for ther  purpose  than  to  ob- 
tain bounties  for  themselves  and  their  principals,  and  could  not  therefore  be  considered,  in 
am  degree  whatever,  as  the  representatives  of  the  nation.  Still,  the  national  party,  when 
remonstrating  against  the  injustice  and  opprei  ivenet  of  the  existing  system,  are  referred 
lo  the  act     "|   1824  und  1828,    >                                                  of  the  nation, — than  which  nothing 

tli-  latter  of  these  measures  has  been  denounced   even  by  its  ad- 
rot  ilea,  while  the  former  had  among  its  i t  strenuous  opponents,  the  men  who  are  now 

lite  leaders  of  ihi    I  -they  having,  as  one  of  the st  distinguished  of  them  ob- 

■  I,  in  i  tplanation  of  nis  abandonment  of  his  former  opinions,  changed  their  positions  in 
rrgnrd  to  this  question,  rather  than  tlicir  principles. 


3 

the  manufacturers  have  enjoyed  against  foreign  competition  equal 
to  52,000,000  dollars.  Yet  even  this  enormous  sum,  according  to 
the  often  repeated  declarations  of  the  most  respectable  individuals 
in  favor  of  the  Tariff,  has  proved  insufficient  to  enable  the  home 
manufacturer  to  gain  the  ordinary  profits  of  capital ;  though  the  du- 
ties which  have  operated  to  keep  out  many  staple  articles,  are  of 
course  much  higher  than  the  average  of  what  have  been  levied  on 
the  imported  goods;  and,  as  we  shall  show,  impose  on  the  nation  a 
heavier  burden, — which,  however,  is  not  for  revenue,  hut  goes,  as  a 
bounty,  into  t lie  pockets  of  the  manufacturers. 

Let  us  now  estimate  the  taxes,  paid  for  the  protection  of  wool- 
lens. 1st.  That  portion  which  arises  from  importations,  and  which 
as  a  revenue  tax  no  one  will  object  to;  so  long  as  it  is  necessary 
far  the  public  service.  2d.  That  portion  of  the  tax,  which  is  im- 
posed on  the  nation  by  the  exclusion  of  foreign  goods,  and  which 
is  levied   solely  for  the   benefit  of  the  privileged  manufacturers. 

1st.  As  to  revenue. — The  average  consumption  of  foreign  wool- 
lens for  ten  years  has  be:  n  8,000,000  dollars  ;  but,  as  might  be 
expected,  the  extreme  Tariff  of  1823  has  greatly  reduced  the 
amount. 

With  a  population  of  about  ten  millions,  in  1821  and  1 822  the  aver- 
age importation  appears  to  have  been  nearly  10,000,000;  while  in 
1830,  with  a  population  of  nearly  13,000,000,  it  had  fallen  below 
6,000,000.  Still,  this  small  sum,  out  of  an  annual  consumption  of 
70,000,000  dollars,  though  loaded  with  protecting  charges  of 
80 per  cent.,  is  complained  of  by  the  favored  manufacturers,  as  ruin- 
ous to  their  interests. 

The  revenue  tax,  then,  on  the  small  quantity  of  woollens  admit- 
ted under  the  extreme  duties  of  60  per  cent.,  amounts  on  6,000,000 
dollars,  to  3,600,000  dollars. 

2d.  To  ascertain  the  amount  of  tax  imposed  by  the  prohibitory 
duties,  we  must,  as  in  the  case  of  cotton  goods,  endeavour  to  form 
an  estimate  of  the  amount  of  woollens  excluded  by  those  duties; 
of  and  we  shall,  in  prosecuting  this  inquiry,  keep  within  the  limits 
probability. 

Some  of  the  manufacturers  maintain,  that  such  are  the  advantages 
which  foreign  countries  enjoy  over  ours,  for  prosecuting  this  branch 
of  manufacturing,  that  even  the  present  rates  i  f  duty,  enormous  as 
they  are,  will  hardly  sustain  them  ;  while  others  recommend  an  en- 
tire prohibition.  If  tbey  are  correct  in  these  opinions,  it  follows  that 
a  large  proportion  of  afl  the  goods  we  consume,  would  be  imported 
were  the  duties  repealed.  But  we  do  not  admit  this  to  be  true,  and 
shall  therefore  not  avail  ourselves  of  the  advantage  afforded  us  by 
their  own  false  assumptions,  in  estimating  the  burden  imposed  on 
the  country  by  their  woollen  monopoly. 

The  whole   consumption  of  woollens  is  estimated   by  Mr.  Nilejj 


and  others  at  70,000.000  dollars.  Our  annual  importation  of 
0,000,000  dollar?,  with  the  protecting  charges  of  $0  per  cent,  added, 
i-  IO.-i  0,1  00  dollars— leaving  the  sum  of  59,200,<:00  dollars  as  the 
amount  of  domestic  woollens  consumed.  The  question  then  re- 
curs, what  proportion  of  this  sum  of  50,000,000  dollars,  is  forced 
upon  the  consumers  by  the  enactment  of  prohibitory  duties  on  simi- 
lar foreign  arti  :les?  We  should  say,  certainly  not  less  than  one-fifth 
of  the  amount  consumed,  or  12,000,000  dollars  ;  and,  estimating  the 
prohibitory  duly  at  70  per  cent.,  we  have  S, 400, 000,  as  the  sum 
levied  upon  the  nation  to  exclude  the  cheaper  foreign  fabrics; 
making,  with  the' revenue  tax  of  3,000,000  dollars,  the  sum  of 
12,000,000  dollars. 

There  is,  in  addition  to  this  taxation,  a '  considerably  increased 
charge  on  the  cost  of  such  portions  of  our  domestic  woollen  goods  as 
are  independent  of  any  protection,  arising  from  duties  on  the  raw 
materials  used  in  their  manufacture,  and  from  the  taxes  on  many 
of  the  necessaries  of  life,  which  operate  heavily  on  all  branches  of 
in  flu -try. 

In  justice  to  the  woollen  manufacturers,  it  must  be  admitted,  that 
while  the  duties  imposed  for  their  protection  are  very  burdensome 
to  the  country,  they  are  themselves  heavily  taxed  by  high  duties  on 
wool,  oil,  and  indigo,  which  constitute  a  large  portion  of  the  cost  of 
many  of  their  staple  fabrics  ;  and  it  has  often  been  asserted  in  journals 
and  speeches  advocating  the  interests  of  the  manufacturers,  that  they 
suffered  more  by  the  increased  duties  on  the  raw  materials,  imposed 
by  the  act  of  1828,  than  they  gained  by  the  increased  duties  on. 
foreign  fabrics.  It  is  also  maintained  that  they  are  injured  by  frauds 
on  the  revenue,  and  by  smuggling  on  the  frontiers  ; — and  how  can  it 
be  otherwise,  since,  as  we  have  already  shown  in  a  former  part  of 
our  Report,  the  alteration  of  a  few  cents  in  the  cost  of  a  yard  of 
cloth,  varies  the  rates  of  duties  from  10  to  GO  or  70  per  cent.? 
Nor  is  it  to  be  expected  that  smuggling  can  be  prevented  on  our 
long  line  of  frontiers,  when  woollens  and  cottons  can  be  transported 
from  Great  Britain  to  the  borders  of  their  extensive  colonies,  for 
from  5  to  10  per  cent.,  (the  duty  in  the  British  colonies  being  only 
'2\  per  rent.)  and  a  laboring  man  can  gain  more  by  the  illicit  in- 
trouUCtioD  of  a  few  pieces  of  cloth,  than  by  a  year's  labor.* 

*  "  It  wax  formerly  conten  led,  in  favor  of  a  free  an  1  constitutional  government  of  defined 
and  limited  |  ours  was  once  though  I  to  he — that  equal  and  moderate  taxation, 
then  linistration  of  public  affairs,  was  among  the  advantages,  which, 
un  I  i  iii/i  n,  l.i  whatever  section  he  might  happen  to  reside, 
might  reasonably  expect  to  enjoy.     In  time  of  war,  when  a  nditure   is  required 

e  |i'il>li'-  di ;  io  i  citizc nut  be  < tent  i"  bear  even  a  burdensome  taxa- 

tion, a    the  prici  "i  tha  tnd  national  independence,  which  must  be  maintained  at 

i 

-  wa  the  condition  of  this  nation  during  our  late  war,  and  still  more  so  during  the 
revolutionary  truggle— one  of  the  principal  object*  of  which  was  to  exonerate  ourselves 
from  unequal,  unjust,  and  burdensome  taxation.    In  such  an  emergency,  with  a  vatat  na« 


The  manufacturers  and  advocates  of  high  duties  are  so  sensible 
of  this  evil,  that  it  was  one  of  the  subjects  most  discussed  in  the 
New  York  Convention  ;  and  Mr.  Ellsworth,  a  respectable  member 
of  that  body,  observed,  "  that  to  such  an  extent  were  frauds  prac- 
tised, that  the  Tariff  was  a  mere  nullity.     In  the  face  of  all  its  pro- 

tional  debt,  limited  revenue,  and  a  heavy  expenditure,  every  citizen  was  called  upon  to  give 
up  the  luxuries,  and  many  of  the  comforts  of  life,  that  the  Commonwealth  and  the  Nation 
might  not  fail  in  the  contests  they  were  engaged  in,  for  want  of  pecuniary  Bupport. 

"  Bui  we  are  now  almost  free  of  del  >t — have  been  blessed  with  a  course  of  abundant  years, 
beyond  everj  former  example — and  bave  a  revenue  of  twelve  to  fifteen  millions  more  than 
our  current  expenses — and  yet  no  civilized  nation  in  the  old  world  is  so  unnecessarily  bur- 
dened with  taxes  as  are  the  people  of  this  Tree  country — who,  with  one  quarter  our  present 
population,  rose,  as  one  man,  against  the  authority  of  the  most  powerful  nation  on  earth — 
and  for  what  I  Because  they  would  not  endure  an  unjust  luxation  of  even  three  cents 
per  pound  on  tea  ! 

"  We  have  said  that  our  system  of  taxation  was  more  burdensome  than  that  imposed  on 
any  civilized  nation  oJ  the  old  world.  The  subjects  of  the  King  of  Great  Britain,  it  must 
be  admitted,  are  as  heavily  taxed  as  any  nation  within  the  pale  of  civilization.  Let  us, 
then,  compare  the  taxation  imposed  on  the  agricultural  and  laboring  classes  of  this  country, 
for  the  benefit  of  a  few  thousand  '•  wealthy  capitalists,"  with  the  taxes  imposed  on  the  sub- 
jects of  William  the  Fourth,  residing  in  Canada,  Nova  Scotia,  &c. — and  the  reader  will  see 
if  our  position  is  not  abundantly  sustained. 


"  ARTICLES. 


Cotton  Goods,    . 
Silk  Goods, 
Woollens,      .... 

Linens, 

Earthen,  China,  and  Glas: 

Ware,  .  .  . 
Hard  ware,  .... 
Rolled  Iron,  .... 
Iron  in  Bars, 
Hemp,  from  Gt.  Britain, 
foreign,   .      .      . 

Salt, 

Sugar, 

Brandy,  Gin,  and  Rum, 

Coffee 

Pepper  and  oilier  Spices, 
if  from  Gt.  Britain, 


Duties  paid  in  Canada, 
fyc,  by  the  subjects  of 
a  King. 


2.1  per  cent. 
2\  per  cent. 
2\  per  cent. 
2j  per  cent. 


Wine,       .... 
Teas-  -Bohea, 

Hyson, 

All  other  kinds, 
Many  other  articles, 


2^  per  cent.    .      .      . 
2  \  per  cent.   .      .     . 
2\  per  cent.  . 
$1  to  $3  50  per  ton, 

Free, 

$7  50  per  ton,    . 

Free, 

1  cent  per  pound,  . 
22  cts.  per  gallon,  . 
1  cent  per  pound,     . 


Free, 


l\  to  6  cts.  per  gal. 
4  cts.  per  pound, 
10  cts.  per  pound,     . 
6  a  7  cts.  per  pound, 
Free, 


Duties  paid  in  the  United 
Slates,  by  the  citizens 
of  a  Republic. 


30  to  150  per  cent. 
22  to  35  per  cent. 
50  to  250  per  cent- 
27^,  per  cent. 

22  to  '0  per  cent. 
27;  per  cent. 
l00  to  160  per  cent. 
4.22  40  to  $37,  per  ton. 


^$60 


per  ton. 


10  els   per  bushel. 
3  to  4  cts.  per  pound. 
53  io  90  cts.  per  gal. 
2  cts.  per  pound. 

Specific,  amounting  to  30 

a  200  per  cent. 
10  to  50  cts.  per  gal. 

4  to  25  Ct«    n-  Hound. 


Alost  non-enumerated  arti- 
I  cles,  15  to  20  per  cent." 
We  have  copied  the  above  statement  rt"°m  ,1,at  excellent  Journal,  7'/i<?  Banner  of  the 
Constitution,  (whose  Editor  has  done  bo  much  to  expose  the  evils  of  the  pernicious  ait  of 
182S, )  that  a  comparison  might  be  made  between  the  taxes  paid  in  this  an  I  in  a  Height  orins 
country,  and  to  convince  every  reflecting  man  of  the  utter  impossibility  of  preventing  an 
illicit  trade,  when  such  temptations  are  held  out  to  fraud  and  avarice. 


6 

visions,  the  manufacturer  did  not  in  reality  enjoy  a  protection  of  more 
than  40  to  45  per  cmt.  ;  "  and  in  explanation  Mr.  E.  added,  "that 
when  the  effect  of  the  duty  on  wool  was  considered,  the  present  Ta- 
riff did  not  operate  as  a  protection  to  the  manufacturer  of  25  per 
cent." 

This  statement  was  sustained  by  Mr.  Brown,  of  Boston,  one  of 
the  most  intelligent,  respectable,  and  experienced  men  engaged  in 
manufacturing. 

"  He  had  \o\rz  been  engaged  in  the  business,  and  he  had  al- 
ways said  that  the  manufacturer  could  do  a  better  business  under 
the  tariff  law  of  1816,  than  that  of  1828,  if  the  existing  frauds  are 
permitted  to  continue." — Mr.  B.,  considering  the  effects  of  these 
frauds  and  the  duty  on  wool,  did  not  estimate  the  protection,  actu- 
ally realized,  as  more  than  25  per  cent.  We  could  quote  similar 
declarations  from  other  equally  respectable  sources,  in  support  of 
what  is  here  advanced; — and  what  is  the  inference?  Why,  that  as 
regards  even  woollens,  the  most  highly  protected  article,  the  man- 
ufacturers, according  to  their  own  declarations,  do  not  realize  so  much 
protection  as  they  would  do  under  a  moderate  duty.* 

_  *  Some  of  die  most  intelligent  woollen  manufacturers  have  always  deprecated,  as  inju- 
rious to  their  interests,  any  departure  from  the  act  of  1816.  They  considered  the  act  of 
1821  as  having  done  them  more  harm  than  good  ;  and  against,  the  act  of  182S  complaint* 
became  still  more  general.  The  following  extract  of  a  letter  to  Mr.  Niles,  editor  of  the 
Baltimore  Register,  shows  in  what  light  the  act  of  1828  was  viewed,  by  the  class  of  manu- 
facturers to  whom  we  refer. 

The  only  true  friends  of  the  manufacturers,  are  those  ivho  nou>  seek  to  repeal 
the  li'Hculous  tariff  of  1828.  Put  a  duty  of  revenue  alone,  on  cloths,  and  remove  the 
duty  on  won]; — 1 1 1  i  -  process  will  invite  the  regular  importer  back  to  bis  old  employment,  and 
finish  the  van,  -xpedient  of  growing  wool  in  this  country."  Again,  in  regard  to  the  cost  of 
making  cloths,  the  ,  i- i t . ->-,  who  appears  to  be  an  extensive  manufacturer,  says — "  We  can, 
ami  do  make  cloths  t,,,  |c>s  1I1I(MI,V  ,,(.,-  V:»r<) ,  than  it  costs  to  make  the  same  qualities  in 
England.  I  his  we  have  n  .,,-d  i,v  experiment.  I  speak  of  the  cost  of  manufacture  alone. 
11  U""M  '"'  """h  »  n'  ''•  for  ,,.-   jf  "„.,.  were  placed  in  England  ;  for  we  eould  there,  with  our 

I"'     li:  "■■■"■      "'  :"K ges^make  cloth,  send  it  to  New  York,  pay  the  duties,  and  take 

more  money  than  we  do  now.  The  difference  is  in  the  slock  ;  and  this  difference  is  attri- 
butable to  the  absurdities  of  the  American  System,  as  it  stands.    The  duties  on  dye-stuffs, 

oil,  soap,  and  wool    takeu  in  c texron  with  the  derangement  of  trade,  by  making  the 

manufacturer txporter,  amounts  to  a  much  higher  protection  to  the  foreigner,  than  all  the 

Tariff  affords  to  us.  Such  are  the  tacts  and  such  the  fruits  of  the  "  System  "  which  the 
Amet  ican  manufacturer  has  toiled  to  support !  " 

These  are  the  opinion-  of  a  manufacturer  who  understands  his  own  interest.  The  act  of 
1828,  which  Mi  Niles  affirms,  in  several  of  his  journals,  "  was  the  result  of  a  political 
bargain,  and  passed  on  principles  disreputable  to  a  Congress  of  the  United  States," 
may  perhaps  have  been  advantageous  to  some  few  individual  manufacturers ;  but  nothing  can 
be  more  obvious,  than  the  follj  of  pretending  lo  encourage  manufacturing  industry,  and  at 

''"'     •'""'  """'  tO  tax  the  raw  materials,  iron,  hemp,  Max,  wool,  lead,  indigo,  and  other  enm- 

poni  nr  p.,,|S  0f  manufactures,  an,|  C0D8titutins  the  principal  value  of  many  of  them,  at)  to 
200  prr  cent.  a  i  i 

The  truth  is,  the   Bt  ,   .        ,     |1(n  wM  ^  w|lhont  any  regard  to  the  great  interests  of 

the  l  niou,  and  was,  we  fear,  8 r|   £Mr  [^  ilea  otllssKsssi  ,by  a  compromise  bet  ween  vari- 

on    "'  ""duals,  who  wenl  to  Congress  iv.  .,„.  Dromotion  of  their  own  ends,  and  those,  too, 

» '»:>  instano    ,  o   the it  sordid  and  sen,.-.    c|,aracter.     They  wenl  to  that  assembly 

■d  to  promote  other  objects  than  that  of  th,  great  interests  of the  people,  and  utterly 
devoid  of  that  elevation  of  sentiment,  and  purity  of  purpose,  which  ought  to  characterise 
wen  eatnuttd.  with  the  government  of  a  great  nation. 


This  is  the  proposition  we  have  attempted  to  sustain  through  the 
whole  course  of  our  remarks. — Let  the  manufacturers  have  their 
raw  materials  either  free  or  at  low  duties,  and  this  benefit,  togeth- 
er with  relief  from  the  general  taxation  impos  d  hy  the  restrictive 
system  and  an  increased  demand  for  their  fabrics  consequent 
upon  this  relief,  would  soon  place  them  in  a  safer  and  more 
prosperous  condition  than  they  now  are,  while  the  nation  would 
be  enabled  to  throw  off  that  heavy  burden,  under  which  she  la- 
bors, and  which  ought  no  longer  to  be  endured. 


THE    IRON    TAX. 


In  estimating  this  tax,  we  shall  not  include  manufactured  articles, 
the  duties  on  which  are  most  inconsistently  put  so  low,  compared 
with  the  duties  on  the  raw  material,  as  to  throw  out  of  employment 
an  immense  number  of  workers  in  iron,  who,  under  a  moderate 
duty  on  bar,  or  raw  iron,  could  manufacture  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  iron  wares  now  imported.  We  have  before  presented  this 
to  the  consideration  of  our  readers,  as  one  of  the  effects  of 
the  high  duty  'system.  Like  the  high  duties  on  wool,  it  is  cal- 
culated to  defeat  the  object  of  this  system,  by  destroying  the  occu- 
pations of  a  large  class  of  men,  for  the  sake  of  giving  employ- 
ment to  a  much  smaller  number,*  because  the  latter  are  connected 
with  a  few  wealthy  and  influential  men,  who  are  able  to  shape  the 
legislation  of  the  country  to  the  promotion  of  their  particular  interests. 

The  quantity  of  unmanufactured  bar  iron  annually  produced  in 
the  United  States,  varies  from  30,000  to  40,000  tons.  The 
duties  on  imported  iron,  as  before  stated,  vary  from  22T%\  to 
37  dollars  per  ton  ;  but,  as  the  high  duty  of  150  per  cent,  levied  on 
British  bar  iron,  diminishes  its  consumption,  the  largest  portion  we 
import  is  from  the  Baltic,  paying  the  lower  duty.  If  we  call  the 
importation  35,000  tons,  and  average  the  duty  at  26  dollars  per  ton, 
which  assumes  that  three-fourths  pay  the  low  and  one-fourth  the 
high  duty,  it  would  make  the  tax  on  imported  raw  iron  910,000 
dollars,  which  goes  into  the  treasury  as  part  of  our  annual  revenue ; 

*  We  are  sustained  in  this  view  of  the  case  by  the  Memorial  of  merchants, 
manufacturers.  &c.  of  Boston,  signed  by  Mr.  Webster,  and  supported  by  him  in 
his  Faneuil  Hall  speech,  in  18-20. — p.  17  of  Memorial. 

"  The  impost  on  iron  is  particularly  injurious  to  industry.  This  article  is  re- 
quired for  the  machines  of  manufactories  themselves,  for  all  the  implements  of 
agriculture,  all  the  tools  of  the  mechanic  arts,  and  f<  r  nails,  of  which  (1000  tons 
are  annually  made,  and  chiefly  from  foreign  iron,  and  which  are  one  of  the  very 
few  of  our  manufactures  now  exported.  A  far  greater  number  of  men  are  em- 
ployed in  converting  this  material  into  articles  of  use,  than  in  extracting  it  from 
the  ore  ;  and  surely  the  interest  of  the  many,  ought  not  to  be  sacrificed  to  that  of 
the  few."  Since  1620,  the  ratio  of  taxation,  by  the  increase  of  duty  and  fall  of 
iron  abroad,  has  been  nearly  doubled. 


10 

— and  so  long,  we  repeat,  as  this  revenue  is  wanted  for  national  pur- 
poses,  no  one  will  complain  of  this  duty. 

We  now  come  to  that  more  indirect,  and,  to  the  majority  of  the 
nation,  invisible  portion  of  the  tax  which  is  levied  on  the  country,  for 
the  purposes  of  keeping  out  of  our  markets  the  cheaper  foreign  com- 
modity, that  we  may  be  compelled  to  buy  the  dearer  home  com- 
modity ;  and  which,  instead  of  going  into  the  public  chest  as  revenue, 
goes  to  the  iron  masters,  as  so  much  bounty,  to  enable  them  to  pro- 
secute a  business,  in  which  large  fortunes  were  made  while  it  enjoy- 
ed a  protection  of  only  7^  to  15  per  cent. 

The  annual  consumption  of  foreign  and  domestic  bar  iron  is  variously 
estimated.  Some  of  the  advocates  of  high  duties  have  reckoned  it  at 
60,000  tons,  but  we  have  called  it  40,000  tons,*  and  allow  the  prohibi- 
tory duty,  which  excludes  the  cheaper  foreign  iron,  to  be  30  dollars  per 
ton.  This  creates  a  tax  on  the  country  of  1,200,000  dollars,  ac- 
cording to  our  estimated  consumption  ;  but  if  we  take  that  which  is 
often  relied  upon  by  our  opponents,  a  tax  of  1,800,000  dollars — a 
tax,  too,  falling  with  most  weight  upon  the  industrious  classes  of  so- 
ciety, who  depend  upon  agriculture,  the  mechanic  arts  and  manu- 
facturing, for  their  daily  support.  And  for  whose  benefit  is  this  heavy 
taxation  ?  Why,  for  that  of  a  few  hundred  iron  masters,  many  of  them 
among  the  wealthiest  men  in  the  nation  ;  and  for  their  sole  benefit^ 
since  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  laborers  they  employ  gain  any 
more  by  a  branch  of  business  propped  up  by  governmental  boun- 
ties, than  they  would  do,  were  they  engaged  in  other  employments 
less  highly  favored  by  legislation. 

It  would  be  some  alleviation  of  the  burden  of  taxation,  if  the 
effect  of  these  high  protecting  duties  were  advantageous  to  those 
interests  which  are  thus  protected  ;  but  from  what  little  experience 
this  nation  has  had  of  their  results,  it  must  be  confessed  that  they  are 
often  injurious  to  those  for  whose  benefit  they  were  established. 
The  acts  of  1824  and  1828,  as  we  have  shown,  were  admitted, 
by  many  of  the  manufacturers  themselves,  to  be  injurious  both  to 
the  cotton  and  woollen  trades. 

France,  since  the  days  of  Colbert,  has  acted  more  fully  up 
to  the  principles  of  the  restrictive  system,  than  any  other  nation  in 
Europe  ;  and  there  cannot  be  a  more  convincing  proof  of  the  mis- 
chievous effects  of  that  system,  than  the  results  which  her  ex- 
perience exhibits. 

With   as  great  natural   advantages  as  the   most  favored  coun- 

■  The  (statements  of  iron  annually  produced  in  this  country  vary  from  30,000 
to  50,1)00  tons.  According  to  the  testimony  of  the  iron  masters  examined  by 
the  investigating  committee  appointed  by  Congress  in  la2d,  it  was  30,000.  The 
Encyclopedia  Americana  calls  the  produce  50,000  tons.  But  it  has  also  been 
alleged  by  those  who  have  inquired  into  the  subject,  that  15,000  tons  are  made 
of  imported  scrap  iron,  which  reduce*  the  quantity  of  domestic  bar  iron  to 
35,000  tons. 


11 

try  in  the  world  is  possessed  of,  she  has  been  paying  higher 
prices  for  her  manufactures  than  most  of  the  neighbouring  na- 
tions; while,  till  within  a  short  period,  her  great  branches  of  manu- 
facturing, with  the  exception  of  silks,*  have  been  in  a  miserable 
condition,  compared  with  those  of  England.  Jn  the  manufacture 
of  coarse  cotton  goods,  and  many  other  articles,  France  is  greatly 
behind  us,  though,  till  within  a.  few  years,  we  were  without  any  pro- 
tecting system. 

Of  the  bad  effects  of  the  duties  in  France,  we  can  furnish  the 
reader  a  striking  example  from  the  Edinburgh  Review,  that  consis- 
tent and  able  journal,  which  has  done  so  much  to  enlighten  the 
world,  upon  the  true  way  of  promoting  national  wealth  and  national 
greatness. 

In  1790,  the  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  iron  into  France 
was  2  francs  20  centimes  per  quintal  of  220  lbs.,  equal  to  about  4 
dollars  per  ton.  In  1814,  it  was  raised,  for  the  purpose  of  protect- 
ing the  iron  masters  against  the  cheaper  foreign  iron,  to  15  francs 
per  quintal,  or  about  30  dollars  per  ton.  This  not  being  sufficient 
to  secure  the  iron  masters  a  monopoly  of  the  home  market,  it  was 
again  raised  in  1822  to  25  francs  the  quintal; — thus  carrying  up  the 
duty  to  50  dollars  per  ton. 

These  excessive  duties,  granted  in  such  quick  succession,  having 
raised  the  prices  of  iron  at  home,  and  reduced  the  importation  of 
foreign,  naturally  attracted  a  great  deal  of  capital  to  the  iron  trade, 
and  occasioned  its  rapid  extension.  In  1819,  the  quantity  of  un- 
wrought  iron  produced  in  France,  was  estimated  at  114,000  tons; 
in  1825,  it  had  increased  to  197,000  tons;  and  in  1830,  it  was 
estimated  at  227,000  tons. 

Notwithstanding  this  immense  duty,  some  foreign  iron  still  con- 
tinued to  be  imported  ;  thus  evincing,  that  the  protecting  duty,  high 
as  it  was,  operated,  entirely,  as  a  tax  on  the  consumers  of  the  home- 
made iron.  Now,  on  the  supposition  that  the  operative  duty  was 
only  20  francs,  the  increased  cost  to  the  nation  would  be  upwards  of 
9,000,000  dollars,  being  a  direct  tax  levied  for  the  benefit  of  the 

*  The  manufacture  of  silk  goods  was  formerly  protected  in  Great  Britain  by 
prohibitory  duties,  and  the  raw  materials  taxed  highly  for  revenue.  Mr.  Hus- 
kisson  established  the  duties  on  manufactures  at  30  per  cent.,  and  at  the  same 
time  lowered  the  duty  on  the  raw  material.  This  measure  was  violently  op- 
posed by  the  privileged  manufacturers,  as  utterly  ruinous  to  their  interests  ;  but 
Mr.  Huskisson  persevered,  and  the  result  has  been  such  an  improvement  in  the 
trade,  that  Great  Britain  now  manufactures  double  the  quantity  of  silk  goods 
that  she  formerly  did,  and  many  of  them  at  lower  prices  than  in  France.  Such, 
too,  would  be  the  effect  in  a  few  years,  in  this  country,  on  cottons,  woollens, 
iron,  &c.  were  the  duties  on  the  raw  materials  repealed  or  greatly  reduced,  and 
the  present  exorbitant  duties  on  those  articles  greatly  lowered. 

The  Northern  and  Eastern  States  have  acquired  such  a  density  of  population 
and  such  an  accumulation  of  capital,  that  they  will  manufpc'u.e  successfully 
without  the  ad  of  i»  restrictiye  system,  as  indeed  some  of  them  have  done  for 
the  last  half  century. 


12 

iron  masters,  who,  at  the  utmost,  did  not  employ  more  than  80,000 
persons  in  all  branches  of  the  business.  Thus  an  annual  premium 
of  112  J  dollars  per  head  was  paid  by  the  nation  to  keep  80,000 
men  employed,  not  for  their  benefit  (since  they  received  no  more 
wages  than  the  average  price  of  labor,  which  they  would  have 
obtained  in  any  other  occupation),  but,  as  with  us,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  forcing  an  unprofitable  business.  And  this  is  what  is  called  by 
the  advocates  of  restriction,  favoring  domestic  industry. 

But  so  far  is  it  from  being  true,  that  such  a  system  gives  increas- 
ed employment  to  labor,  that,  as  in  the  instance  before  us,  it  sinks 
that  capital  on  which  labor  must  rely  for  its  support.*  That  is  to 
say,  the  effect  of  the  iron  tax,  by  compelling  the  nation  to  pay  an  in- 
creased price  of  50  dollars  per  ton  for  all  they  consumed,  beyond 
what  the  imported  iron  would  have  cost,  prevented  the  accumu- 
lation of  national  wealth,  to  the  full  extent  of  that  tax — equal  to 
9,000,000  dollars  per  annum. 

With  all  this  encouragement,  however,  to  the  iron  business  in 
France,  it  was  in  1830  in  a  very  depressed  state  ;  partly  owing  to 
the  increased  price  of  fuel  in  the  iron  districts,  and  partly  to  that 
over  production  and  bad  management,  commonly  attendant  upon  a 
branch  of  business  forced  by  prohibitions  and  bounties ; — and  accord- 
ing to  the  evidence  taken  before  a  commission  of  inquiry,  the  pro- 
duction of  iron  was  not  more  profitable,  than  it  had  been  under  a 
protecting  duty  of  about  ball'  what  it  then  enjoyed. 

Such  too  have  been  the  effects  of  the  great  increase  of  the  pro- 
tecting duties  on  cottons,  woollens  and  other  branches  of  manufactur- 
ing, in  this  country,  imposed  by  the  acts  of  1824  and  1828. 

The  exclusion  of  foreign  iron  from  France,  by  high  duties,  gave 
an  increased  employment  to  capital  and  labor  in  that  branch  of  busi- 
ness. But,  had  the  foreign  iron  been  admitted,  it  must  have  been 
paid  for  by  the  productions  of  France,  which  would  have  given 
employment  to  an  equal  quantity  of  capital  and  labor  in  furnishing 
these  productions,  while  there  would  have  been  an  annual  saving 
to  the  nation  of  9,000,000  dollars. 

This  is  a  practical  illustration  of  the  necessary  effects  of  all  pro- 

*  Tin'  New  Ycuk  Convention, at  the  very  moment  they  denounce  the  princi 
p]e«  of  political  economy,  which  are  in  truth  the  principles  of  common  sense 
applied  to  the  common  atluirs  of  life,  and  universally  acted  upon  by  all  wise  and 
prudent,  men  —  admit  the  correctness  nt'  this  principle  when  they  affirm,  that  it 
is  a  settled  axiom,  that  "  the  industry  of  a  nation  is  in  proportion  to  the  capital 
devoted  to  its  maintenance.''  Why,  then,  we  ask,  do  they  advocate  a  system 
which  sinks  vast  amounts  of  property,  by  forcing  capital  from  the  branches  of 
industry  which  increase  the  real  wealth  and  resources  of  the  country,  and  turn- 
ing ,1  t,,  othei  branches  which  impoverish  the  nation  ?  This  is  the  effect  of  the 
"  American  System. "    as  lias  been  illustrated  by   the  case  of  the  iron    monopoly 

in  Fr.iix,-  -i  tained  in  that  country,  as  with  us, by  tho  ie  combinations  of  w  ealthy 
men.  whose  influence  overrules  Kings  and  Parliaments,  as  well  as  Republican 
Legislatures. 


13 

tective  laws.  They  do  not  give  increased  employment  to  capital 
and  labor,  but  merely  force  them  from  their  natural  direction,  where 
they  are  profitable,  into  artificial  channels, where  they  are  unprofitable. 

We  will  now  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  effect  of  high  prices  of 
iron  on  its  consumption. 

According  to  the  statement  in  the  Edinburgh  Review,  taken  as  is 
alleged  from  the  most  authentic  sources,  the  quantity  of  unwrought 
iron  produced  in  France  in  1830,  was  227,000  tons  ;  to  which  9,000 
tons  of  foreign  imported  iron  being  added,  makes  the  consumption 
230,000  tons. 

Now  as  the  business  was  in  a  depressed  state,  this  was  probably 
beyond  the  usual  wants  of  the  couniry  ;  but  we  will  even  esti- 
mate the  consumption  at  237,000  tons. 

Let  us  now  compare  this  with  the  consumption  in  Great  Britain, 
where  the  price  was  less  than  half  of  that  of  the  protected  iron  of 
France. 

A  statement  before  us  of  the  returns  from  the  various  iron 
works  in  England,  Scotland,  and  Wales,  for  1827,  gives  G90,000 
tons.  We  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  the  quantity  exported  ;  but 
it  did  not,  we  apprehend,  exceed  190,000  tons,  leaving  500,000  tons 
for  the  consumption  of  Great  Britain.  The  population  of  the  United 
Kingdom  is  22,000,000  ;  that  of  France  32,000,000.  If  the  con- 
sumption of  the  latter  country  had  been  in  proportion  to  that  of  Great 
Britain,  it  would  have  amounted  to  727,000  tons,  while  in  reality 
it  appears  to  have  been  only  237,000  tons. 

Here  the  effect  of  the  protecting  system  was  to  raise  the  prices  of 
the  principal  instruments  by  which  the  business  of  agriculture,  and  of 
the  mechanic  and  manufacturing  arts,  is  carried  on.  This,  certainly, 
is  a  most  unnatural  way  of  promoting  the  industry  of  a  nation. 

Nothing,  it  will  be  confessed,  can  be  more  destructive  to  the  busi- 
ness of  the  manufacturing  and  all  the  principal  employments  of  life, 
than  taxing  iron,  and  other  raw  materials,  which  enter  so  largely  in- 
to the  cost  of  manufactures,  and  all  other  productions  of  labor. 
Accordingly,  it  appeared  on  evidence  before  the  French  Com- 
mission, appointed  to  inquire  into  the  effects  of  the  high  price  of 
iron,  that  it  added  from  20  to  33  £  per  cent,  to  the  cost  of  machinery 
and  implements  of  agriculture  ;  for  instance,  10  dollars  to  the  cost  of 
a  plough,  and  25  a  33£  dollars  to  the  cost  of  cotton-spinning  machines, 
he.  he. 

The  great  error  of  the  French  government  was  in  attempting  to 
force  the  production  of  a  commodity,  which,  from  the  greater  natu- 
ral advantages,  which  England  and  other  countries  have  of  producing 
it,  can  be  imported  into  France  at  one  third  or  one  half  the  cost  of 
her  protected  iron ;  and  exchanged  for  those  articles  of  pro- 
duction, which  France,  from  her  superior  natural  advantages,  can  fur- 
nish cheaper  than  any  other  nation. 


14 

The  high  price  of  iron  in  this  country  has  a  similar  effect  on  its 
consumption. 

From  the  immense  advantages  we  possess,  in  the  cheapness  of 
our  lands,  the  economy  and  excellence  of  our  institutions,  the  en- 
terprise, skill  and  industry  of  our  citizens,  and  the  comparatively 
equal  distribution  of  property — the  consumption  of  iron,  one  of  the 
first  necessaries  of  life,  ought  to  be  nearly  or  quite  in  proportion  to 
that  of  Great  Britain  ;  or  as  13  is  to  22,  the  relative  difference  of 
population.  This  would  make  our  consumption  295,000  tons ; 
whereas,  according  to  the  most  authentic  statements,  it  is  only 
116,000  tons,  including  all  sorts  of  manufactured  articles.  Others, 
however,  call  it  130  a  140,000  tons. 

The  cost  of  common  bar  iron  in  England  is  about  £5  :  10s., 
equal  to  25  dollars,  per  ton,  which  would  make  500,000  tons 
cost  the  consumers  the  sum  of  12,500,000  dollars.  The 
average  price  of  iron,  domestic  and  foreign,  consumed  in  this  coun- 
try, is  90  dollars  per  ton,  which,  taking  the  consumption  at  140,000 
tons,  would  make  the  cost  to  the  consumers  12,600,000  dollars. 

We  appeal  to  every  impartial  and  considerate  mind,  whether  this 
investigation  into  the  consequences  of  the  high  duty  system,  on  iron, 
one  of  the  most  important  articles  of  consumption,  does  not  prove  its 
oppressiveness  upon  every  branch  of  industry, — manufacturing  in 
common  with  all  others. 


No.  5. 


THE  SUGAR  TAX. 


This  is  a  tax  which  can  be  estimated  with  more  correctness  than 
many  others,  because  both  the  amount  of  sugar  made  at  home,  and 
that  imported,  may  be  accurately  ascertained.  According  to  the 
Treasury  returns,  the  import  of  brown  sugar  for  1826  to  1S29  (four 
years),  was  256,572,770  lbs.,  of  which  quantity,  42,369,914  lbs. 
were  exported,  leaving  for  consumption,  214,202,856  lbs.,  thus 
making  the  annual  consumption  of foreign  sugar  53,550,589  lbs. 

The  quantity  made  at  home  has  never  exceeded  90,000,000  lbs. ; 
and  within  a  few  years  has  been  as  low  as  65,000,000  lbs.  We  will 
estimate  it  at  75,000,000  lbs.  and  the  importation  at  55,000,000  lbs. 

The  duly  on  this  amount  of  imported  sugar  is  1,650,000  dollars. 
This  tax  goes  into  the  national  treasury,  as  revenue  ;  but  on  the 
domestic  sugar  there  is  also  a  tax  of  3  cents  per  lb.,  amounting  to 
2,250,000  dollars,  because  the  consumers  are  compelled  to  pay 
this  increase  of  price,  ia  consequence  of  the  duty  which  prevents 
their  bartering  their  produce  for  the  cheaper  foreign  sugar. 

The  whole  protecting  duty  on  sugar,  then,  is  3,900,000  dollars,  of 
which  1,650,000  dollars  (the  duty  collected  on  foreign  sugar)  go 
into  the  treasury,  as  revenue,  and  2,250,000  dollars  go  into  the 
private  pockets  of  a  few  wealthy  planters  of  Louisiana,  as  protection. 

Both  from  its  magnitude  and  the  small  number  who  enjoy  its  bene- 
fits, there  is  no  feature  of  the  protecting  system  which  exhibits  its 
oppressiveness  and  gross  inequality  more  strikingly  than  the  tax  on 
sugar.  From  a  statement  of  the  produce  of  1828-9  (the  largest 
crop  which  has  been  raised  in  this  country),  it  appears  that  there 
were  but  691  sugar  estates,  of  which  207  were  not  in  a  productive 
condition.  The  quantity  produced  was  87,965  hhds.,  averaging 
1000  lbs.  each,  or  88,000,000  lbs.  Of  the  484  estates  in  bearing, 
170  produced  less  than  60  hhds.,  they  may  have  averaged  40  hhds., 
or  together  6,800  hhds.,  leaving  81,165  hhds-  for  314  estates;  the 
bounty  on  which,  at  30  dollars  per  hhd.,  is  2,434.950  dollars,  being 
7,774  dollars  to  each  estate,  besides  the  bounty  of  5  cents  per  gallon 

NO.    V.  1 


2 

on  molasses.  Some  of  the  proprietors  appear  as  owners  of  several 
estates  ;  so  that,  probably,  there  were  not  more  than  450  proprietors 
who  shared  this  enormous  bounty. 

Here,  then,  is  a  tax  on  a  necessary  of  life  of  more  than  four  mil- 
lions per  annum,  levied  0.1  thirteen  millions  of  people,  for  the  pro- 
tection of  less  than  five  hundred  individuals,  most  of  whom  are 
doubtless  in  a  prosperous,  and  many,  as  we  have  reason  to  believe, 
in  a  wealthy  condition.  Can  any  one  deny,  then,  that  the  policy 
against  which  we  contend,  is  unjust,  unequal  and  oppressive?  Af- 
ter the  demonstrative  evidence  here  adduced,  can  there  be  any 
hesitation  in  condemning  a  system  which  thus  taxes  the  many  for 
the  benefit  of  a  kxv,  and  which  cannot  accomplish  the  views  of  its 
supporters,  unless  it   produce  that  effect  ? 

That  we  may  not  be  accused  of  undue  severity  in  our  judgment 
of  the  sugar  tax,  we  will  adduce  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  most 
zealous  advocates  of  the  "  American  System."  Mr.  Carey  says, 
"  The  exorbitant  duty  of  3  cents  per  lb.,  equal  to  75  a  lOOper  cent., 
on  brown  sugar,  a  necessary  of  life  and  chiefly  used  by  the  poor,  is  for 
the  protection  of  the  wealthy  planters  of  Louisiana,  who  always 
vote,  en  masse,  against  the  protection  of  manufactures,  by  duties  of 
25,  30  or  33  per  cent.  The  duties  on  sugar  operate  most  ruinously 
on  the  merchants  engaged  in  the  West  India  trade,  in  which  that 
article  forms  a  chief  item  of  remittance,  and  is  always,  or,  at  least, 
almost  always,  a  losing  concern." 

Mr.  Niles  says,  "  We  are  really  impressed  with  a  belief  that  if  the 
duty  on  sugar  was  one  and  a  half  cent  per  lb.,  instead  of  3  cents, 
that,  while  the  revenue  would  be  increased  by  the  greater  con- 
sumption of  the  foreign  articles,  the  demand  for  our  agricultural 
products,  such  as  (lour,  beef,  pork,  &lc,  and  many  manufactures, 
would  be  nearly  doubled  in  the  increased  trade  which  that  reduction 
of  duty  woidd  <j;ive  rise  to,  in  the  enlarged  market  afforded  for  the 
productions  of  Cuba  and  other  West  India  islands." 

Here  we  have,  from  two  of  the  most  ardent  supporters  of  the  re- 
strictive  system,  a  striking,  though  by  no  means  exaggerated  account 
of  the  |  ernicious  consequences  of  what  they  justly  term  "  a 
monopoly  of  a  necessary  of  life,  chiefly  used  by  the  poor."  But,  as. 
tiny  further  siy,  it  not  only  Imposes  a  heavy  tax  on  the  poor,  but 
"operates  most  ruinously  upon  ihe  merchants  engaged  in  the  West 
India  trad",  in  which  thai  article  forms  a  chief  item  of  remittance  ; " 
and  thus,  as  Mr.  Niles  affirms,  deprives  us  of  a  demand  for  those 
agricultural  productions  and  the  employment  of  that  shipping,  on 
which  the  poor  and  industrious  classes  depend,  not  for  luxuries, 
but  for  comfort  and  subsistence. 

There  is  not,  indeed,  ;i  branch  of  commerce  affording  a  more  use- 
ful occupation  to  capital  and  labor  than  our  trade  with  Porto  Kico, 
St.  Croix,  and  Cuba.     From  these  places  we  draw  the  greatest  part 


3 

of  our  supply  of  foreign  brown  sugar,  in  exchange  for  the  staple  and 
bulky  articles  of  our  soil,  for  which  we  stand  in  the  greatest  need  of 
a  foreign  market.  Notwithstanding  this,  we  tax  their  sugar  75  a 
100  per  cent.,  and  their  spirits  nearly  double  even  that  extrava- 
gant rate.  This  trade  also  employs  a  vast  quantity  of  our  shipping, 
and  a  great  many  seamen.  Yet  the  farmers,  merchants  and  navi- 
gators are  told,  and  many  of  them  are  made  to  believe,  that  the  ex- 
existing  system  is  beneficial  to  agriculture,  commerce,  and  naviga- 
tion. 

The  cause,  however,  bad  as  it  is,  has  had  zealous,  and  we  d;>ubt 
not  honest  defenders.  How  could  it  be  otherwise,  embracing  as 
this  does,  the  interests  of  a  small  but  wealthy  class,  sustained,  too, 
by  other  classes  having  like  interests  and  pretensions  to  defend  ? 
An  examination  of  the  leading  positions  on  which  the  advocates  of 
this  monopoly  rely  for  its  defence,  will  conclude  what  we  have  to 
say  on  this  part  of  our  subject. 

I.  It  is  contended  that  the  planters  were  encouraged  by  legis- 
lative protection  to  undertake  the  cultivation  of  sugar,  and  therefore 
it  would  be  a  violation  of  the  public  faith  to  withdraw  any  of  the  pro- 
tection now  enjoyed.  In  conformity  with  this  view  of  the  subject, 
the  Legislature  of  Louisiana,  in  their  Memorial  to  Congress  during 
the  last  session,  assert,  that  "  a  slight  historical  retrospect  will  prove 
that  it  was  in  a  great  measure  an  involuntary  direction  of  their  in- 
dustry. The  (General  Government,  if  it  did  not  compel  them  to 
the  pursuit,  invited  them  to  attempt  it." 

A  brief  statement  of  facts  will,  we  think,  utterly  overthrow  this 
part  of  their  defence. 

The  system  of  high  protecting  duties  commenced  in  1S1G.  The 
cultivation  of  sugar  in  Louisiana  existed  long  before  that  period. 
According  to  Pitkin,  the  produce  in  1810  had  risen  to  10,000,000 
lbs.,  and  lie  adds  that  the  culture  was  rapidly  extending.  Coxe  con- 
firms this  statement.  At  that  period,  Pitkin  estimated  the  consump- 
tion of  all  sorts  of  sugars  at  70,000,000  lbs.  ;  so  that  our  domestic 
production  of  Louisiana  and  of  maple  sugar  (which  was  also  about 
10,000,000  lbs.),  was  equal  to  about  two-fifths  of  the  consumption 
of  brown  sugar.  The  duty  on  foreign  brown  sugar  was  then  2£  cents 
per  lb.,  or  about  20  a  25  per  cent,  on  the  then  cost  of  foreign  su- 
gar ;  and  it  was  established  at  that  rate,  before  Louisiana  was  admit- 
ted into  the  Union,  not  for  protection,  but  for  revenue.  At  this 
time,  with  no  higher  duty  than  25  per  cent.,  and  that  absolutely  ne- 
cessary for  revenue,  it  cannot  be  pretended  that  the  planters  were 
forced  into  the  culture  of  sugar,  or  even  encouraged  to  it,  by  legisla- 
tive bounties. 

But  it  is  further  contended  in  the  Louisiana  Memorial,  that,  by 
the  act  of  1816,  further  encouragement  was  granted,  which  strength- 
ens their  claim  to  the  existing  bounty  of  75  a  100  ^w  cent. 


The  war  duty  on  brown  sugar  was  5  cents  per  lb,,  which,  at  the 
cost  of  the  article  at  that  time,  was  not  half  so  high  as  the  existing 
ratio  of  protection.  Nevertheless,  Congress  reduced  it  to  3  cents, 
thus  adding  but  half  of  a  cent  to  the  duty,  first  imposed,  of  2£  cents, 
whilst  the  duties  on  woollens  were  raised  from  the  former  rate  of 
15  per  cent,  to  25  per  cent.,  and  on  cottons  from  1 5 per  cent,  to  an 
average  of  30  a  40  per  cent. 

What,  then,  was  the  ratio  of  protection  which  the  planters  of  Lou^ 
isiana  received,  by  the  duty  imposed  on  brown  sugar  by  the  act  of 
1816,  solely  for  revenue,  and  on  which  they  now  rest  their  claims  to 
a  protection  of  75  a  1 00  per  cent3 

Mr.  Senator  Johnson  says,  "  The  price  of  sugar  id  1816  was  18 
cents,  the  duty  of  3  cents  was  1 6  per  cent."  This  comes  from  one  of 
the  most  intelligent  and  zealous  advocates  of  the  existing  duty. 
We  believe,  however,  that  the  cost  of  brown  sugar  abroad,  was 
10  a  12  cents  per  lb.,  making  the  protection  25  a  33£  per  cent,; 
and  this,  we  apprehend,  is  the  utmost  ratio  which  can  be  claimed 
on  the  ground  of  encouragement  to  the  cultivation  by  acts  of  legisla- 
tion. 

II.  It  is  maintained  that  the  nation  has  been  compensated  for  the 
high  duties,  by  the  beneficial  effect  of  the  home  competition  in  re- 
ducing the  price  of  sugar.  That  is  to  say,  the  additional  supply  of 
the  sugar  raised  in  Louisiana,  since  1816,  is  the  cause  of  the  fall  in 
price  in  all  parts  of  the  world.  "  It  is  a  great  mistake,"  says  the 
Memorial  to  which  we  have  adverted,  "  to  suppose  that  the  sugar  of 
the  West  Indies  could  be  afforded  at  the  present  prices,  if  the  com- 
petition, created  by  the  productions  of  Louisiana,  ceased  in  the  mar- 
ket." 

This  is  one  of  the  most  popular  arguments  by  which  the  extreme 
duties,  not  only  on  sugar,  but  on  cottons,  woollens,,  iron,  &ie.  are  de- 
fended. No  one,  however,  acquainted  with  the  causes  which  reg- 
ulate the  market  value  of  the  great  staples  of  commerce,  will  allow 
it  any  weight — for  the  obvious  reason,  that  the  quantity  of  sugar 
raised,  or  that  can  be  raised  here,  is  inconsiderable  when  we  take 
into  view  the  general  supply  of  the  article,  and  the  unlimited  quan- 
tity of  labor  and  extent  of  soil,  which  can  be  brought  into  requisition 
for  its  production,  in  climates  much  better  adapted  to  its  cultivation 
than  Louisiana. 

The  market  price  of  all  commodities  depends  upon  the  proportion 
of  the  supply  to  the  demand.  The  return  of  peace,  after  the  fall 
of  Bonaparte,  created  a  sudden  and  great  demand  for  most  of  the 
great  staples  of  commerce,  and  of  sugar  among  the  rest.  The  con- 
sequence was  a  rapid  extension  of  the  production  of  them,  which, 
in  time,  reduced  the  price  of  almost  all  of  them,  and  perhaps  of 
none  more  than  the  article  of  sugar.  At  this  moment  it  is  extreme- 
ly depressed,  and  probably  below  the  cost  of  production,  allowing 
the  average  rate  of  profit  on  capital. 


In  1815  and  1816,  brown  sugar  (now  selling  at  6  a  8cts.  per  lb.) 
was  worth  12  a  16  cts.  per  lb.  In  Cuba,  the  qualities  which  are 
now  selling  at  2  a  3  cts.  per  lb.,  were  then  at  6  a  S  cts.  per  lb. ;  and 
the  reduction  in  price  in  other  countries  has  been  equally  great. 
All  this  was  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  high  prices  of  the 
former  period.  To  ascertain  the  effect  of  the  increased  cultivation 
in  Louisiana  upon  its  price,  let  us  estimate  the  general  supply  of 
sugar  in  the  great  markets  of  the  world. 

The  consumption  of  Great  Britain  is  about  400,000,000  lbs.  ; 
that  of  France  about  200,000,000  lbs.,  of  foreign  and  domestic  ;  and 
that  of  all  Europe  besides,  we  will  call  500,000,000  lbs.  The  con- 
sumption of  the  United  States  is  about  150,000,000  lbs  ;  that  of  the 
rest  of  the  continent  and  of  the  islands,  at  least  as  much  more, 
making  in  all,  1,400,000,000  lbs..  To  this  is  to  be  added  the  con- 
sumption of  those  countries  and  islands  in  Asia,  to  which  we  can,  and 
do,  freely  resort  for  supplies,making  the  aggregate  2,000,000,000  lbs. 
The  production  must  be  somewhat  greater,  at  this  moment,  as  may 
be  inferred  from  the  accumulation  of  stock  for  some  years  past. 
We  do  not  profess  to  be  very  accurate  in  this  statement,  nor  is  it 
essential  to  our  purpose  to  be  so;  but  we  are  confident  that  we 
have  not  over-estimated  the  annual  produce  of  this  great  staple. 

In  1810,  the  produce  of  Louisiana  was  10,000,000  lbs. ;  in  1816, 
it  was  probably  25,000,000  lbs.,  and  it  is  now  about  75,000,000  lbs., 
making  an  addition  to  the  general  supply  of  50.000,000  lbs.  since 
the  protecting  system  commenced.  This  is  2£  per  cent,  of  the  to- 
tal supply  of  the  commercial  world.  The  question  is,  what  effect 
can  the  additional  supply  of  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  whole  quan- 
tity have  upon  the  price  of  this  staple  ? — To  our  apprehension,  the 
effect  would  have  been  imperceptible,  had  this  quantity  never  been 
raised,  or  were  its  production  now  stopped.  But  even  were  it  de- 
monstrable that  this  2%  per  cent,  of  the  amount  raised,  had  a  mate- 
rial effect  on  the  price,  the  obvious  answer  would  be,  that  the  ex- 
tension of  its  cultivation  in  places  infinitely  better  adapted  to  it  than 
Louisiana,  would  immediately  remove  the  difficulty.  We  are  placed 
within  a  few  days  sail  of  the  finest  sugar  countries  in  the  world.. 
Its  culture  could  be  increased  there  to  almost  any  extent,  and  were 
our  planters  to  abandon  it,  we  might  be  supplied  with  any  addition 
to  the  amount  of  our  present  consumption,  at  half  its  present  price.* 

*  The  following  statement  shows  at  how  low  a  prioe  sugar  can  be  raised,  in  a 
climate  and  soil  suited  to  its  production,  and  the  excessive  bounty  paid  to  sugar 
planters. 

"The  duties  in  the  'American  System,'  generally  considered  most  oppressive," 
says  .4  Correspondent  of  the  Salem  Gazette,  "  are  "those  upon  sugar,  hemp,  iron, 
and  manufactures  of  coarse  woollens.  The  duty  upon  sugar  oppresses  all 
classes  ;  because,  as  an  article  of  necessity,  it  is  used  by  both  ricli  and  poor 
throughout  the  Union.     The  great  shipping  interest  ia  oppressed  by  the  duty  on 


The  same  remarks,  with  regard  to  the  fall  of  prices,  are  applica- 
ble in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  the  reduction  in  the  prices  of 
nearly  all  the  other  protected  articles.  They  have  fallen,  not,  as  is 
most  absurdly  maintained,  because  they  are  taxed,  nor  because  of 
domestic  competition,  but  from  causes  operating  upon  all  the  mar- 
kets of  the  world,  and  which  would  have  reduced  them  to  their 
present  rates,  had  the  protecting  system  never  been  thought  of. 

III.  The  advocates  of  the  sugar  monopoly  urge  as  a  reason  in 
favor  of  its  continuance,  the  employment  of  a  great  deal  of  capital 
and  slave  labor,  by  which  the  value  of  slaves  is  enhanced  in  the 
slave-holding  States. 

The  amount  of  capital  and  of  slave  labor  employed  in  the  cultiva- 
tion of  sugar,  has  been  immensely  exaggerated.  As  {e\v,  even 
amongst  the  intelligent  classes  have  investigated  the  matter,  and  as 
the  assertions  of  those  interested  in  sustaining  the  system  are  taken 
upon  trust,  the  current  representations  upon  this  subject  have  had 
much  effect  in  reconciling  many  to  the  system. 

Mr.  Nilessays,  "  The  sugar  business  employs  18,000  full  hands," 
and  adds,  that  "  the  ruin  of  the  sugar  planters  would  depreciate 
slave  property  in  the  United  States  100,000,000  dollars." 

hemp,  'whilst  tli.it  upon   iron,  an  article  of  the   first  importance,  bears  upon  all, 
And  particularly  upon  the  agricultural   class.     Manufactures  of  coarse  woollens 
are  taxed  generally  over  one  hundred  per  cent,  upon  their  European  first  cost, 
and  the  effect  is  to  oppress  the  poor  in  every  part  of  the  Union  ;  as  the  cheapest 
and  coarsest  goods  are  taxed  the  highest.     But  as  to  sugar,  which  is  first  referred 
to, —  when  we   reflect  that  the   whole  number  of  proprietors  of  sugar  plantations 
is  but  about  700,  who    prepare  the  article   by  the   aid  of  slave  I, bar  exclusive- 
ly,   (the    number  of  slaves   of  every  'description  :.being  about  35,000)  we  can- 
not but  ask  ourselves,  is  it  reasonable,  is  it  just,  that  the  whole  Union  should  be 
taxed  five  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars,  that  seven  hundred  planters  should  grow 
rich?     To  show  inoreforcibly  the  oppressive  effect  of  the  high  duty  upon  sugar 
I  give  herewith  a  statement  of  the  actual  cost,  all  charges  included,  of  six  hhds. 
of  sugar  of  good  quality,  bought  the  past  season  at    Ponce,   in   Porto  Rico,  and 
which  shows  it  to  have  been  placed  on  board   ship  for  a  fraction   less  than  one 
and  a  half  cents  per  pound  ;  and  have  added  also  the  nett  weight  returned  to  the 
.custom  house  here,  with  the  ainount  of  duty  charo-ed  thereon  : 
Ponce,  ld31. 
6  hhds  sugar,  weighing  5013  lbs.  at  1£  ets.  ....         ^75  ]f» 

Export  duty         .......  1313 

Commission,  2£  per  cent.  .....  2  20 

Lighterage  .......         -         2  48 


Total     $03  00 

$03,  Porto  Rico  currency,  is  equal,  at  20  percent,  discount,  to        -         $74  40 

"  The    return  weigh!  to  the  cui  topi  house  was  for  nett  lbs.  4063,  upon  which  a 

duty  of  three  cents  per  II).  was  charged,  amounting  to  $148,  89,  a  sum  actually 

/loi/hlr  its  cost  in  Porto  Rico,  and   in    effect  trebling  its  cost  in  the  United  States, 

the  moment  the  duty  was  ascertained. 

"  The  above  facta  must  satisfy  pverj  inn  did  mind  that  the  duty  of  four  cents 
upon  whit.-,  and  three  upon  brown  sugar,  is  extremely  oppressive,  and  bring 
boms  the  question  as  to  the  expediency  of  its  continuance,  to  the  bosom  of  every 
man  iu  N«w  England." 


Mr.  Edward  Everett,  however,  in  his  speech,  in  May  1830,  in 
defence  of  the  present  system,  goes  much  further.  He  says,  "  The 
sugar  culture,  which  has  grown  up  in  Louisiana  under  the  Tariff 
laws,  has  created  a  new  demand  for  labor,  which  is  met  principally 
'  from  the  old  Atlantic  States.  It  is  my  deliberate  opinion,  that 
hitherto  the  Slates  most  benefited  by  the  laws  for  the  protection  of 
manufactures,  lie  south  of  the  Potomac.  The  Southern  States  have 
a  monopoly  of  a  species  of  property,  increasing  in  numbers,  and 
which  under  any  circumstances  decreases  in  value.  1  mean  their 
slaves." 

Mr.  E.  proceeds,  and  estimating  the  number  of  slaves  at 
2,000,<  00,  at  200  dollars  each,  giving  a  capital  of  400,000,000  dol- 
lars, he  maintains  that  the  transportation  of  slaves  from  the  other 
States  to  Louisiana  for  the  increasing  cultivation  of  sugar,  has  af- 
fected the  value  of  the  whole  slave  property  of  the  United  States 
lOOpercent*  Mr.  E.  closes  by  asserting  it  as  his  belief  that  the  labor 
of  the  South,  now  amounting  to  a  monied  capital  of  400,000,000  dol- 
lars, would  not,  but  for  this  circumstance,  be  worth  more  than 
200,000,000  dollars  at  this  moment,  and  that  rapidly  declining. 
"  Here,  then,  (he  says.)  is  one  operation  of  the  Tariff,  creating  to  the 
Southern  planter  a  capital  of  200,000,000  dollars,  or  12,000,000  dol- 
lars annually." 

Mr.  Senator  Johnston,  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, concurs  in  Mr.  Everett's  views.  Mr.  J.  estimates  the  whole 
slave  population  at  2,153,370,  at  200  dollars  each,  making 
430,G74,000  dollars.  The  value  of  this  property,  throughout  the 
Union,  he  considers  soentirely  regulated  by  the  number  employed  intle 
cultivation  of  sugar,  that  a  reduction  in  its  price  of  but  1  cent  per  lb., 
would  sink  the  slave  capital  from  430  to  215  millions  of  dollars. 
"  The  present  price  of  slaves,"  he  says,  "  is  fixed  by  sugar  at 
5J  cents  per  lb. ;  of  this,  the  expenses  are  equal  to  3&  cents,  leaving 
2  cents  profit, f  and  this  2  cents  constitutes  the  standard  of  the  val-. 

*  "  I  know  that  this  trade  is  regarded  as  discreditable  to  the  South  ;  that  the 
last  thing  a  planter  will  part  with  is  his  servants.  But  in  the  division  of 
estates,  in  the  execution  of  judgments,  in  the  punishment  of  misconduct,  cases 
arise  under  the  laws  of  the  country,  in  which  these  tales  of  this  kind  of  proper- 
ty take  place,  and  by  them  the  demand  for  Louisiana  is  supplied.  I  am  told  that 
the  *  ffect  of  this  demand  on  the  value  of  slaves,  is  equal  to  100  per  e  vt  :  that 
the  whole  mass  of  the  property  is  enhanced,  or  kept  from  falling  to  that  extent." 

The  above  extract  is  from  Mr  Everett's  speech  in  <  'ongress  in  defence  of  the 
taxes  on  sugar,  iron,  wool  and  woollens,  cotton  goods,  glass.  Ac.  ranging  from  25 
to  200  per  cent,  and  bearing  on  the  people,  not  in  proportion  to  their  wealth,  but  to 
their  want  of  it, — one  of  the  characteristic  features  of  the  "  American  System." 
For  a  satisfactory  refutation  of  the  piinciplea  on  which  the  system  is  founded, 
the  reader  is  referred  to  the  North  American  Ileview.  from  l-H>  to  \&2i't,  in  which 
will  be  found  a  series  of  well  written  espays,  some  of  which  have  often  been  at- 
tributed to  Mr.  Everett,  and  never  denied  by  him. 

t  According  to  this  statement,  the  gain  on  sugar,  at  the  price  of  f>£  cts.  per  lb. , 
is  2  cts.  on  a  cost  of  3J  cts.,  equal  to  56 per  cent.  But  the  price  of  suear,  for  the  last 
fifteen  years,  has  averaged  8  a  9  cts.  per  lb.,  whi*1"  raises  the  profits  much  high- 


8' 

ue  of  slaves  ;  whatever,  therefore,  diminishes  this  sum,  diminishes 
the  value  of  slaves  by  the  same  rule.  Thus,  the  reduction  of  1  cent 
profit  would  diminish  the  profit  one  half,  and  therefore  the  rate  of 
interest  in  the  investment  one  half,  and  therefore  the  value  of 
slaves  one  half." — "  It  is  the  production  of  this  article  of  sugar  In 
Louisiana,  which  gives  the  actual  value  to  slave  property  ;  the  price 
of  those  brought  here  annually,  is  usually  not  much  less  than 
2,000,000  dollars,  estimating  them  at  their  first  cost  in  Virginia,  Ma- 
ryland, and  the  other  States  where  they  are  purchased." 

The  only  impression  on  a  rational  mind  from  such  a  high-colored 
picture  of  the  pecuniary  advantage  of  the  sugar  culture  and  the  do- 
mestic slave  trade,  would  be,  that  at  least,  one  half  of  the  slave  pop- 
ulation and  a  large  portion  of  the  money  capital  of  the  Union,  were 
employed  in  the  cultivation  of  sugar,  since  nothing  short  of  this  could 
produce  such  a  result,  as  sustaining  the  value  of  430,000,000  dollars, 
to  the  extent  of  50  per  cent. 

Let  us  examine  this  subject,  first,  with  regard  to  the  amount  of 
capital  employed.  The  gross  value  of  an  average  crop  of  sugar, 
estimating  it  at  75,000,000  lbs.,  and  at  Mr.  Johnston's  value  of 
5£  cents,  is  4,125,000  dollars.  To  this  is  to  be  added  3,000,000 
gallons  of  molasses  (at  40  gallons  per  hhd.)  at  20  cents,  amounting  to 
600,000  dollars ;  making  the  gross  value  of  the  sugar  crop 
4,725,000  dollars.  This,  certainly,  does  not  indicate  the  employ- 
ment of  a  very  large  capital,*  including  in  the  term,  slaves,  fixtures, 
land,  and  every  other  species  of  investment. 

Let  us  compare  this  amount  with  the  whole  productive  industry 
of  the  country,  which  Mr.  Everett,  in  the  very  speech  alluded  to, 
estimates  at  1,000,000,000  dollars  annually.  Now  the  value  of 
land  and  labor  depends  on  the  general  employments  of  the  country, 
and  not  on  any  particular  branch  of  industry.  But,  it  may  be  con- 
tended that  the  value  of  slave  labor  depends  on  those  particular  em- 
ployments pursued  in  the  slave-holding  States. f     Granting  this,  we 

er,  even  though  a  liberal  allowance  be  made  for  greater  charges  of  cultivation, 
than  are  now  incurred.  That  the  planters  of  Louisiana  should  be  desirous  to 
sustain  a  monopoly  like  this,  is  not  surprising.  But  it  is  lamentable  that  the 
nation  is  deluded  into  the  support  of  a  system,  of  which  this  sugar  tax  is  one 
of  the  least  onerous  burdens  it  imposes.  It  is  still  more  lamentable  that  our 
National  Legislature  should  lose  sight  of  every  principle  of  justice,  in  refusing 
to  relieve  tliH  country  of  such  an  unjust,  unequal,  and  unnecessary  taxation. 

"  It  should  not  be  forgotten  that  nearly  the  whole  of  this  capital  could  be 
applied  to  other  purposes,  were  the  culture  of  sugar  abandoned,  and  that  the  tax 
p  iid  by  the  country,  for  supporting  this  culture,  is  3  eta.  per  lb.,  on  a  consump- 
tion of  150,000,000  lb  .  equal  to  1,500,000  dollars  per  annum,  or  about  the  whole 
grost  in!  in  of  the  sugar  crop  of  the  United  States. 

1  If  any  reliance  can  be  placed  on  Mr.  Senator  Johnston's  estimate  of  the  cost 
of  sugar,  which  he  calls  :<.j  cts,  affording  a  profit  of  56  per  cent  ,  at  the  low  price 
of  5j  cts  per  pound,  a  considerable  reduction  of  duty  might  be  made,  and  still 
leave  the  planters  a  handsome  profit.  The  annexed  statement  from  the  New 
York  Evening  I'ost,  corroborates,  in  some  measure,  that  of  Mr.  Johnston,  though 
it  mako  the  profit  !*»• 


will  estimate  the  annual  product  of  the-e  employments,  such  as  rais- 
ing cotton,  grain  of  all  sorts,  tohacco,  naval  stores,  provisions,  &,c, 

"At  the  time  when  Louisiana  was  transferred  to  the  United  States,  there 
were  comparatively  hut  few  sugar  estates  in  that  colony  :  The  great  advantages 
which  the  new  political  connexion  offered  to  those  engaged  in  this  hranch  of  ag- 
riculture, had  the  effect  to  induce  the  formation  of  similar  establishments  by 
settlers  from  every  part  of  the  Union,  and  in  a  short  time  sugar  became  one  of  the 
staple  articles  of  the  new  State.  The  quantity  has  continued  to  increase,  and  to 
such  an  extent,  that  the  crop  of  the  present  year  is  estimated  at  about  one  hun- 
dred thousand  hogsheads,  or  one  hundred  millions  of  pounds.  This  increase  is 
not  to  be  wondered  at,  when  we  consider  that  the  planter  is  in  the  first  place 
protected  by  a  duty  of  three  cents  per  pound  on  foreign  sugar,  and  that  in  the 
second  place,  his  crop  is  shipped  to  the  northern  and  western  consumer  free  from 
any  Custom  House  duty,  and  that  such  supplies  as  his  estate  may  require  from 
other  parts  of  the  Union  are  brought  to  him  also  free  from  all  custom  dues.  It 
follows,  therefore,  that  their  sugar  is  sent  all  over  the  Union,  charged  only  with 
the  expense  of  transportation,  insurance  and  commissions,  and  other  supplies 
are  received  equally  as  cheap. 

"  Having  some  experience  in  sugar  plantations,  we  will  now  proceed  to  exam- 
ine whether  such  extraordinary  protection  is  absolutely  necessary. 

"  We  will  suppose  that  a  plantation  has  been  made  at  an  outhiy  of  fifty  thou- 
sand dollars,  an  investment,  however,  by  no  means  common  with  new  settlers, 
who  irenerally  have  not  the  command  of  such  large  means. 

41  The  capital  is  laid  out  as  follows  ; — 

In  500  acres  of  land,  at  $10  per  acre, $5,000 

CO  negroes,  at  an  average  of  $300  each,  ...  -         J  8,000 

Dwelling,  negro  and  other  houses,  works,  tools,  steam  engine,  &c.     23,000 
Expenses  of  living  before  making  a  crop,  and  other  incidental 
expenses,  --------         -  4,000 

$50,000 
"  Of  the  500  acres,  300  will  be  laid  out  in  canes,  and  the  remainder  will  be  for 
pasturage.  The  good  lands  are  generally  said  to  yield- 1500  pounds  of  sugar  and 
100  gallons  of  molasses:  but  we  will  take  what  is  considered  a  low  medium — 
say  300  acres  of  cane,  at  1250  lbs.  per  acre,  375,000  lbs  ;  molasses,  about  84  gals, 
per  acre,  -J5.000  gallons.  At  the  present  time  sugar  is  quoted  on  the  plantations, 
in  the  New  Orleans  Price  Current,  at  5  cents,  and  molasses  at  15  cents.  In  for- 
mer years  they  have  been  quoted  and  sold  much  higher. 

375,000  lbs.  brown  sugar,  at  5  cts.  per  lb. $18,750 

25,000  galls,  molasses,  at  15  cts.  per  gal.         -----         3,750 

$22,500 
"  Deduct  for  yearly  expenses  of  the  estate,        -  3,000 

$19,500 
"  Thus  we  see  a  nett  revenue  of  nineteen  thousand  five  hundred  dollars,  or 
an  income  of  39  per  cent.,  en  an   investment  of  fifty  thousand  dollars — a  result 
which  we  apprehend  is  not  far  from  correct.     Thus  much  for  protection. 

"  Let  us  now  proceed  in  examining  whether  the  business  would  be  worth 
pursuing,  without  this  extraordinary  contribution  from  the  people.  Let  us  see 
what  would  be  the  condition  of  the  planter,  were  the  duty  on  foreign  sugar  re- 
duced two  cents,  that  is  to  say,  from  3  cents  to  1  cent  per  pound — which  reduc- 
tion would  have  the  effect  to  reduce  the  price  of  domestic  sugar  in  a  like  propor- 
tion. We  have  already  said  that  300  acres  of  cane-planted  land  would  yield 
:17.->,U(I()  lbs.  sugar,  which,  at  the  reduced  price  of  3  cents,  is  -  $11,250 
25,000  gallons  molasses,  at  15  cents, 3,750 

$15,000 
"  Deduct  as  before  for  yearly  expenses  -        -  3,000 


$12,000 


NO.    V.  2 


10 

in  which  slaves  are  actually  employed,  at  one  third  of  the   whole 
produce  of  the  country  ;  it  would  amount,  according  to  Mr.  Everett's 

"  Or.  at  the  reduced  price  of  3  cents  per  pound,  24  per  cent,  on  his  capital. 
Now  this  is  simply  the  nett  income  from  his  outlay,  without  taking  into  our  cal- 
culations the  increased  value  of  his  farm,  or  the  natural  increase  of  his  negroes. 
How  do  these  results  compare  with  those  of  our  farmers  of  the  North  and  West? 
Can  any  one  of  them  boast  of  such  golden  returns  ?  Yet  he  of  the  North  or 
West  has  not  been  sparing  of  his  labor.  He  and  his  sons  have  wotked  with 
their  own  hands  in  the  field  ;  they  have,  perlnps,  cultivated  with  their  own 
hands  quite  as  many  acres  ;  and,  when,  at  the  end  of  the  year,  they  have  sold 
the  whole  fruit  of  their  labor,  what  is  the  sum  total  of  their  earnings  ?  Why,  if 
any  one  of  them  has  made  a  clear  two  thousand  dollars,  he  has  done  better  than 
most  of  his  neighbours.  And  we  ask.  why  should  tiiis  man  be  called  upon  to 
bear  his  proportion  of  a  tax  avowedly  levied  on  him  to  enrich  a  fellow  citizen, 
who  stands  precisely  in  the  same  moral  condition  as  himself? 

"  But  it  is  said  the  sugar  planters  laid  out  large  capitals  under  the  implied 
faith  of  the  government,  that  they  would  be  protected  against  foreign  competi- 
tion by  laying  a  duty  upon  that  imported  from  abroad.  In  the  first  place,  We  de- 
ny this  doctrine  of  implied  protection.  Congress  has  from  time  to  time  increased 
or  modified  the  Tariff,  as  has  appeared  to  them  necessary  or  expedient,  without 
pledging  itself  to  pursue  any  permanent  system  of  protection.  But  even  had 
such  a  pledge  ever  been  given,  is  it  absolutely  necessary  that  a  government 
should  perpetuate  an  error,  because  it  has  once  committed  it?  Must  we,  year 
after  year,  persevere  in  enforcing  a  law  which  a  large  portion  of  the  law  makers 
themsehes  now  acknowledge  to  be  impolitic  or  oppressive  ?  Another  plea  for 
protection  is  the  uncertainty  of  the  sugar  crop  in  Louisiana;  and  we  must  con- 
fess that  of  all  arguments  this  appears  to  be  the  most  extraordinary,  that  any  set 
of  intelligent  men  should  seriously  ask  of  their  fellow-citizens  to  protect  them, 
by  taxing  themselves,  for  pursuing  a  business  which  nature  herself  has  made 
hazardous.  We  are  told  that  the  sugar  crop  is  precarious  on  account  of  the  cli- 
mate. Therefore,  because  the  climate  of  Louisiana  is  not  always  congenial  to 
the  growth  of  the  sugar  cane  ;  because  an  early  or  a  late  frost,  or  a  wet  or  a  dry 
season,  destroys  a  little  or  much  of  the  crop,  we,  the  consumers  of  the  article, 
are  required  to  make  good  this  loss  in  good  years,  as  well  as  in  those  seasons 
when  the  crop  has  failed.  In  short,  we  are  asked  to  tax  ourselves  to  insure 
the  planters  against  loss  in  an  undertaking  which  they  themselves  pronounce 
hazardous. 

"But  let  us  examine  further  into  the  extent  of  the  sacrifices  which  we  are 
called  upon  to  make,  in  order  to  protect  this  branch  of  agriculture. 

"  On  referring  to  the  last  report  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the  com- 
merce and  navigation  of  the  United  States,  there  appears  to  have  been  import- 
ed up  to  30th  September,  1821): — 

<;s..7.i7,r»7-J  lbs.  brown  sugar.     Exported         ....        $10,643,859 

4,709,720  lbs.  white    do.  Do. 1,699,629 

Leaving  for  consumption — 

3,715  lbs.  brown  sugar,  paying  3  cts.  per  lb.  duty         -      $1,738,611,45 
3,010,091  lbs.  white,  paying  4  cts.  per  lb.  -         -         -  120,402,64 

"  It  appears,  t lien,  that  the  people  have  contributed  $1,859,014,09 

for  protection  of  domestic  sugars.  But  large  as  this  sum  is,  it  is  not  all.  We 
are  required  to  contribute  a  much  larger  sum  in  another  way,  although  not 
quite  so  apparent  :  we  are  called  upon  to  pay  the  Louisiana  planter  three  cents 
per  pound  more  tor  his  sugar,  than  we  should  do,  could  foreign  sugars  come  to 
the  eon-  inner  without  the  present  duty  of  three  cents  per  pound.  We  will  sup- 
po  e  the  quantity  of  foreign  sugars  consumed  during  the  present  year,  the  same 
M  that  reported  above,  and  we  will  suppose  the  quantity  of  the  last  Louisiana 
crop  to  have  1>  en  B0,0  0,000  pounds.  Now,  if  the  consumer,  by  reason  of  the 
protecting  duty,  has  to  pay  three  rents  per  pound  more  for  the  domestic  sugar 
than  he  would  have  to  pay  wre  there  not  that  duty  on  sugars  from  abroad,  does 
it  i.ot  follow  that  2,400,00*0  dollars  must  be  added  to  the  1,859,014  dollars  paid 
juto  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  show  the  sum  total  of  what 


11 

statement,  to  333,000,000  dollars,  of  which  the  sugar  product  would 
constitute  something  less  than  5,000,000  dollars, or  about  l&  per  cent. 
of  the  value  of  the  whole  production  of  slave  labor  ;  and  about  one 
half  of  one  per  cent,  of  the  whole  production  of  the  country. 

Does  not  this  investigation  of  facts  demonstrate  the  incorrectness 
and  enormous  extravagance  of  the  statements  under  examination  ? 

2d.  We  now  proceed  to  examine  the  quantity  of  labor  employed, 
and  we  shall  here  again  refer  to  Mr.  Johnston's  statement ;  and  though 
he  unquestionably  over-estimates  the  numbers  of  slaves  dependent 
on  the  culture  of  sugar,  we  will,  for  the  argument,  admit  that  he  is  ac- 
curate as  to  the  numbers  employed  in  it.  He  says,  "  The  production 
of  100,000  hhds.,  requires  25,000  effective  hands  ;  and  adding  for 
children  that  are  unproductive,  there  may  be  estimated  35,000  slaves, 
now  engaged  in  the  cultivation  of  sugar." — "  It  will  require  an  in- 
crease of  half  that  number,  to  be  taken  to  Louisiana  and  established 
on  the  sugar  estates,  to  supply  the  home  market  for  sugar,  which 
together  will  make  52,500  slaves." 

The  cr6p  of  sugar  in  Louisiana  has  never  reached  90,000  hhds., 
and  has  not,  except  in  two  or  three  instances,  exceeded  GO, 000  hhds. 
Mr.  Everett  calls  the  average  crop  70,000  hhds.  We  will  estimate 
it  at  75,000,  and,  according  to  Mr.  Johnston's  calculation,  this 
amount  would  require  18,750  effective  hands  for  its  production  ; 
and  adding  for  children,  the  whole  number  would  be  2G,250  slaves 
now  engagedin  this  cultivation.  The  market  price  of  slaves,  rearing 
them,  as  is  here  proposed,  as  an  article  of  merchandise,  depends  on 
the  proportion  of  the  supply  to  the  demand,  and  not  on  any  partic- 
ular occupation  in  which  they  may  be  engaged.  The  employment 
of  18,750  hands  in  the  cultivation  of  sugar,  has  no  greater  effect  in 
sustaining  the  value  of  slaves,  than  the  employment  of  the  same  num- 
ber in  the  cultivation  of  rice,  cotton,  tobacco,  or  grain  ;  and  an  ar- 
gument founded  on  the  opposite  belief,  implies,  to  our  apprehension, 
a  gross  ignorance  of  the  subject,  or  an  utter  contempt  for  the  under- 
standings of  those  to  whom  such  reasonings  are  addressed. 

The  whole  number  of  slaves  in  the  United  States  is  estimated  by 
Mr.  Johnston  at  2,153,370,  of  whom  but  1 8,^50  effective  slaves  are 
engaged  in  the  production  of  sugar.  Nevertheless,  we  are  told  by 
this  gentleman  and  other  ingenious  advocates  of  this  monopoly,  that 
the  employment  of  this  small  number,  equal  to  less  than  1  per  cent. 
of  the  whole  slave  population  (and  less  than  li  per  cent.,  even  with 
their  unproductive  adjuncts),  has  the  effect  of  sustaining  the  value  of 
that  whole  species  of  property,  to  the  amount  of  215,000,000   dol- 

the  sugar  consuming  people  pay  for  protecting  a  precarious  business — a  business 
which  the  arrangements  of  nature  have  confined  to  a  small  section  of  our 
country  only  ?" 

This  well  written  communication  sustains  the  view  we  have  taken  of  the- 
tax  imposed  by  the  sugar  duty  on  the  consumers. 


12 

lars,  being  the  extent  ofhalf  of  its  present  estimated  value.  Can  any 
thing  be  more  preposterous  than  such  a  conclusion,  or  the  arguments 
adduced  in  its  support? 

As  an  inducement  to  the  slave-holders  of  other  States  to  sup- 
port the  sugar  duty,  the  prospective  benefits  of  its  more  extended 
cultivation  are  held  out  to  them,  in  the  consequent  increase  of  the 
demand  for  their  slaves  in  the  market  of  Louisiana.  Here,  again, 
we  resort  for  facts  to  the  evidence  of  one  of  the  best  informed  and 
most  ardent  supporters  of  the  Tariff.  Mr.  Johnston  says,  "  In  ten 
years  the  consumption  of  sugar  will  require  more  than  200,000  hhds., 
and  double  the  number  of  hands,  and  twice  the  amount  of  capital 
now  employed." 

The  crop  now  requires  20,250  hands,  productive  and  unproduc- 
tive ;  and  supposing,  with  Mr.  Johnston,  that  it  will  double  in  ten 
years,  the  increased  number  for  this  great  extension  of  the  business, 
will  be  equal  to  the  number  now  employed,  and  were  they  all  to  be 
procured  from  other  States,  it  would  furnish  an  annual  demand  for 
2,625  slaves* 

According  to  Mr.  Johnston,  the  whole  slave  population  of  the 
country  is  2,153,370.  If  they  increase  in  the  ratio  they  have  done 
heretofore,  at  the  end  of  ten  years,  their  number  will  reach  to  near- 
ly 3,000,000.  The  annual  births  may  now  be  taken  at  50,000,  and 
in  ten  years  they  will  have  attained  to  70,000.  What  effect,  then, 
we  ask,  can  an  increased  demand  for  2,625  slaves  have  on  a  popu- 
lation of  from  2  to  3  millions,  with  an  annual  addition  to  its  number 
of  from  50  to  70,000  ? 

But  even  this  benefit  from  a  domestic  slave-trade,  thus  held  up 
to  the  nation,  as  one  of  the  valuable  results  of  the  "  American  Sys- 
tem," is  hypothetical ;  and,  if  we  can  credit  the  Legislature  of  Lou- 
isiana, not  likely  to  be  realized.  The  argument  which  holds  out  the 
lure  of  an  increased  demand  for  slaves,  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  Louisiana  does  not  raise  slaves  enough,  on  her  own  territory, 
for  the  employment  of  her  increasing  capital,  but  must  rely  upon  im- 
portations from  other  States.  Now  this  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the 
Legislature  of  Louisiana,  who,  in  their  Memorial  to  Congress,  assert, 
in  unqualified  terms,  "  Louisiana  has  an  extent  of  soil  and  a  slave 

*  Mr.  Everett  states  in  his  speech,  when  Urging  the  domestic  slave-trade  as 
one  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  "  American  System,"  that  "three  millions  of 
dollars  go  to  the  planting  States  for  slaves."  Now,  if  this  branch  of  domestic  in- 
dustry is  in  such  an  active  and  flourishing  condition,  it  cannot,  be  attributed  to 
the  sugar  tax,  except  in  a  small  degree,  since,  according  to  Mr.  Johnston's  state- 
ment, the  annual  demand  lor  slaves,  effective  and  non-effective,  is  but  2625,  which, 
at  -Jill  (dollars  per  head,  would,  amount  only  to  525,000  dollars.     In  truth,  as  we  shall 

hereafter  show,  by  the  Memorial  of  the  Legislature  of  Louisiana,  that,  State  has 

already  ;i  sullieient  slave  population  to  carry  on  its  increasing  BUgar  cultivation. 

The  importation  of  slaves  From  oilier  Stales  has  been  put  under  severe  restrictions, 
by  a  law  lately  passed  by  the  Legislature  of  Louisiana. 


13 

population,  capable  of  producing  double  the  quantity  of  sugar  that 
she  now  does." 

But  suppose  it  were  true  that  a  continuance  of  the  existing  sugar 
tax  would  promote  an  annual  increased  demand  lor  2G25  slaves, 
and  thus  sustain  the  value  of  slave  lahor,  to  the  extent  represented  ; 
at  what  cost  is  this  to  be  accomplished  ?  We  answer,  at  the 
cost  of  4,500,000  dollars  per  annum  on  our  present  consumption; 
and  should  it,  as  Mr.  Johnston  anticipates,  double  in  ten  years,  we 
shall  then  have  a  sugar  tax  of  9,000,000  dollars  per  annum.  As  far 
as  the  attainment  of  this  object  is  in  view,  viz.  the  promotion  of  the 
domestic  slave  trade,  how  much  more  economical  would  it  be  for 
the  nation  to  purchase  the  2G25  slaves,  and  transport  them  to  Afri- 
ca ?  At  Mr.  Johnston's  valuation  of  200  dollars  per  head,  this  might 
be  effected  for  525,000  dollars  at  a  saving;  for  the  whole  period  in 
question,  of  more  than  forty  millions  of  dollars.* 

IV.  Another  popular  argument,  and  one  which  addresses  itself  with 
much  force  to  an  active  and  influential  class  of  men  who  are  induced 

*  The  following  remarks  of  the  Editor  of  the  New  York  Evening  Post  sustain 
the  view  we  have  taken  of  this  question.  That,  journal  is  one  of  the  few,  in  the 
Northern  and  Middle  States,  which  have  taken  a  manly  and  independent  course, 
on  this  important  question — advocating,  with  great  ability,  the  cause  of  the  peo- 
ple against  the  cause  of  monopoly  disguised  as  it  is  under  the  plausible  terms, 
invented  by  those  who  enjoy  its  benefits. 

"  Mr.  Johnston's  letter  on  the  sugar  duty,  some  extracts  of  which  we  published 
on  Saturday,  is  a  very  curious  document,  for  Northern  eyes.  His  great  argument 
in  favour  of  continuing  the  present  heavy  tax  on  sugar — namely,  that  it  will 
prove  a  great  encouragement  to  the  raising  of  negroes— is  admirably  calculated 
to  make  the  people  of  this  quarter  submit  to  the  tax  without  murmuring.  Let 
the  farmer,  who  tills  the  soil  with  his  own  hands,  and  who  pays  five  or  ten  dol- 
lars a  year  as  a  tax  on  this  important  necessary  of  life,  just  recollect  that  he  is 
givincr  the  money  for  the  increase  of  slaves  in  Louisiana  and  Florida,  and  he 
will  doubtless  pay  it  cheerfully  ;  and  will  moreover  thank  the  virtuous  gentle- 
men who  represent  him  in  Congress  for  obliging  him  to  submit  to  it.  Above  all, 
we  shall  expect  such  of  the  editors  of  newspapers  as  are  members  of  manu- 
mission and  colonization  societies  to  come  out  in  favour  of  the  continuance  of 
the  sugar  duty,  since  it  is  likely  to  give  them  a  handsome  increase  of  business. 
At  least,  we  shall  expect  them  to  be  silent,  and  let  the  tax  be    kept  on  quietty. 

"Some  arithmeticians,  however,  we  learn,  have  set  themselves  to  calculating 
the  profits  of  this  speculation,  and,  as  we  hear,  they  have  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  additional  number  of  slaves  which  will  be  raised  in  this  way,  will 
not  be  quite  worth  the  tax  that  will  be  paid  for  their  sake.  Mr.  Johnston  supposes 
that  in  five  years  an  increase  of  36,000  slaves  will  be  needed  to  cultivate  the 
sugar  estates,  provided  the  tax  is  kept  on.  These  slaves  being  valued,  accord- 
ingto  his  estimate,  at  200  dollars  each,  will  be  worth  5,200,000  dollars.  Now,  the 
sugar  tax  paid  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  amounts  toabout/of/r  millions 
arul  a  half  every  year.  The  aggregate  of  the  five  years  tax  will  exceed  twenty- 
two  millions,  enough  to  buy  these  negroes  five  times  over.  This  will  be  a 
most  effectual  consolation  for  the  Northern  fanners.  Even  the  Southern  States 
themselves  will  have  paid  in  this  tax  twice  as  much  as  the  negroes  are  worth. 

"  Let  it  not  be  said  that  this  tax  is  not  paid  by  the  consumers.  Mr.  John- 
ston expressly  asserts  that  it  is,  and,  indeed,  this  is  a  part  of  his  argument.  He 
says  in  his  letter  :  ;  The  present  price  of  sugar  at  5A  cents  is  sustained  by  a  du- 
ty of  3  cents  a  pound.  If  the  duty  was  removed,  fun  inn  sugar  irould  In  sold 
,  3  cents  less,  and  ours  would  fall  in  the  sarin  proportion.  That  reduction  would 
bring  sugar  below  the  actual  cost,  and   therefore  it  could   not   be   made,  even  if 


14 

thereby  to  suppose  their  interests  closely  connected  with  the  sugar 
trade,  is,  that  it  affords  employment  to  domestic  labor  and  capital,  * 

land  and  slaves  cost  nothing1.'  Here  is  a  direct  affirmation  that  the  duty  comes 
out  of  our  pockets,  and  is  paid  to  the  producer  ;  and  all  this  in  the  teeth  of  those 
who  maintain  that  a  protecting  duty  makes  the  article  cheaper." 

*  The  following  well-written  and  forcible  statement  from  the  Salem  Gazette, 
presents  a  striking  view  of  the  folly  as  well  as  oppressiveness  of  the  sugar  tax. 
Some  of  the  writer's  data,  we  notice,  are  taken  from  Mr.  Niles's  Register,  and  are 
on  that  account  deserving  the  confidence  of  our  opponents — he  being  one  of  the 
most  accurate  and  able  writers  in  favor  of  the  "  American  System." 

"  In  Niles'  Register,  Vol.  9,  page  405,  is  the  following  extract  from  a  letter  to 
a  member  of  Congress  in  1816,  communicated  to  the  editor: — 

"'  The  cultivation  of  the  cane  is  rapidly  extending  with  us  (in  Georgia.)  I 
have  received  some  interesting  information  on  this  subject,  which  may  be  in- 
teresting to  you.  Major  Butler,  on  85  acres  of  land,  cultivated  by  17  hands,  pro- 
duced 140,000  lbs.  sugar,  and  75  hogsheads  molasses.'  John  McQueen,  Esq. 
planted  18  acres  in  cane  ;  average  product  20,000  canes  per  acre ;  5000,  the 
product  of  one  fourth  of  an  acre,  yielded  600  gallons  of  juice,  which,  boiled 
down,  made  072  lbs.  sugar,  and  may  lose  50  lbs.  in  draining,  leaving  022  lbs.,  or 
2488  lbs.  sugar  to  the  acre. 

"  It  is  stated  that  the  culture  of  sugar  in  Louisiana,  (see  Niles'  Register)  solci 
at  8  dollars  50  cents  per  cwt.,  gives  782  dollars  for  the  labor  of  each  hand  em- 
ployed. This  is,  however,  considered  the  maximum,  and  is  164  dollars  per 
hand  more  than  the  same  price  would  give  Major  Butler,  iis  stated  above. 

"  Therefore,  take  the  statement  of  Major  Butler,  (who  in  cultivating  85  acres 
must  have  tested  fairly  the  cost  of  producing  sug;ir),  as  data,  and  call  the  whole 
annual  production  S0,000  hogsheads,  or  800,000,000  lbs. — If  17  hands  produce 
140,000  lbs.,  '.1714  hands  will  produce  all  the  sugar  now  raised  in  this  country, 
or  80,000,000  lbs. ;.  and  supposing  the  same  proportion  of  molasses  as  stated 
abo\e,  75  hhds.  to  140,000  lbs.  sugar,  would  be  42,857  hhds,  or  say  4,  2i5,700 
gallons;  and  if  140,000  lbs.  require  85  acres  cultivated  land,  60,000,000  lbs  will 
require  485,714  acres.  So  that  less  th.m  10,000,  say  9714  working  hands  and 
485,714  acres  of  cultivated  land  are  all  that  are  now  employed  in  raising- 
all  the  sugar  and  molasses  produced  in  the  United  States;  and  to  sustain 
this  interest,  the  people  of  this  country,  and  that  class  too  the  least  able  to  bear 
it,  are  taxed  annually,  nearly  the  whole  value  of  the  production  itself,  as  will 
appear  by  the  following  : — 
"  Duties  accrued  on  Sui^ar  imported  in  1830 — 7.1,776,781  lbs. 

st  3.00')  cts.  average         ...  ....  $2,465,203  53 

8,347,019  gals,  at  5  cts.  per  gal. 417,350  95 

80,000,000  lbs.  Bttgar,  domestic  production,  at  3  cts.  per  lb.  2,400,000  00 

4,285,700  gals  molasses,  domestic  production  also,   at  5  cts. 

per  gal.  ...  .  ....  .        214.275  00 


$5,496,828  48 
"Thus  the  enormous  sum  of  5,196,823  dollars  is  annually  paid  by  the  consu- 
mers of  one  of  the  great  necessaries  of  life,  as  a  bounty  to  about  700  planters  in 
Louisiana,  to  enable  them  to  keep  up  the  value  of  their  land  and  slaves  unnatu- 
rally  high,    and  to  realize   greal    profits;   for   it  seems  to  be  coiweded  by  all  who 

have  written  upon  the  subject,  that  the  climate  and  Boil  of  Louisiana,  part  of  Flor- 
id,i,  Georgia,  Ac  are  admirably  adapted  to  the  culture  of  sugar;  that  it  is  as  much 
a  natural  production  of  the  soil  a.  cotton,  and  can  be  raised  as  cheap  in  this 
country  as  any  where,  and  to  almost  any  extent.  If  so,  why,  upon  the  princi- 
ple  of  the  protective  system  itself,  should  tins  enormous  duty  be  continued,  and 
an  unnatural  stimulus  given  to  the  production  of  an  article,  which  must  in  a 
short  time  exceed  the  consumption  of  the  country,  when  the  surplus  must  be 
exported,  and  of  course  the  price  of  the  whole  fall  to  a  level  with  that  produced 
in  other  countries,  and  thereby   produce  the  same    effect  upon  the  planter  as 


15 

in  furnishing  to  Louisiana  our  agricultural  and  manufacturing  produc- 
tions in  exchange  for  her  sugar.     Mr.  Johnston   says,    "  A  large 

if  the  duty  were  repealed,  and  even  much  more  disastrous,  as  there  will  then  be 
a  much  greater  interest  involved  ?  With  such  a  bounty  as  is  now  in  fact  given 
by  Government,  almndance  of  land  adapted  to  its  culture,  plenty  of  slaves,  and 
higher  profits  than  can  be  realized  by  any  other  application  of  capital,  compe- 
tition will  be  increased,  and  the  cultivation  very  rapidly  extended. 

"  It  appears  by  a  letter  from  Mr.  Johnston,  of  Louisiana,  a  great  advocate  of 
the  protective  system,  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  in  1830,  in  reply  to  his 
circular  requesting  information  on  the  subject,  that  there  were  then  725  sugar 
plantations,  with  35,000  slaves  of  all  ages  and  both  sexes  upon  them  ;  and  that 
with  an  accession  of  26,000  more,  they  could  produce  300  hogsheads  sugar  on 
each,  making  in  all  217,500  hogsheads,  or  217,500,000  lbs.,  which  is  50  to  GO 
million  lbs.  more  than  the  present  consumption  of  this  country,  and  must  of 
course  be  exported  and  thrown  into  foreign  markets  in  competition  with  the  su- 
gar of  the  Fast  and  West  Indies,  South  America,  &.c.  Such  being  the  actual 
situation  and  the  probable  future  condition  of  the  sugar  interest  in  the  United 
States,  to  continue  the  duty,  on  the  principle  of  protection,  is  too  manifest  an 
absurdity  to  merit  comment,  as  itis  perfectly  evident  it  could  be  of  no  avail — even 
supposing  it  to  be  the  true  policy  of  this  country  to  encourage  the  application  of 
labor  and  capital  to  the  production  of  an  article  of  no  more  value,  when  pro- 
duced, than  the  tax  which  is  levied  upon  the  labor  of  the  whole  community  to 
create  it,  and  thereby  the  use  of  the  capital  and  labor  employed  in  it  being  abso- 
lutely lost  to  the  country,  inasmuch  as  it  is  necessary,  in  order  to  sustain  those 
employed  in  this  branch  of  industry,  to  transfer  to  it  the  proceeds  of  the  labor  of 
an  equal  number  employed  in  some  other,  or  a  portion  of  all  others  in  the  coun- 
try. It  is  precisely  as  it  would  be  with  an  individual,  who  should  insist  upon 
expending  his  capital  and  labor  in  the  production  of  something  of  no  value,  or 
that  could  be  obtained  without  capital  or  labor  on  his  part,  and  therefore  of  no 
cost  to  himself.  For  with  less  than  the  amount  of  tax  now  paid,  all  the  sugar 
produced  here  could  be  imported  from  abroad,  and  paid  for,  and  therefore  the 
operation  of  the  present  system  is  in  fact  more  injurious  in  its  effect  upon  the 
public  interest,  than  if  the  Government  were  to  take  from  the  treasury  funds 
sufficient  to  purchase  abroad  the  same  quantity  of  sugar  and  molasses  as  is  pro- 
duced in  this  country,  and  gire  it  to  the  725  planters  employed  in  that  business, 
to  be  sold,  for  their  own  benefit,  to  the  consumers,  because  then  their  capital 
and  labor  could  be  employed  in  the  production  of  some  real  value  to  the  country, 
by  being  applied  differently,  supposing  sugar  not  to  be  a  natural  production  and 
not  congenial  to  the  climate  and  soil,  and  incapable  of  being  raised  without  pro- 
tection. But  as  regards  this  article,  that  is  not  the  fact.  It  can  be  raised  and 
would  be  raised,  with  or  without  a  duty,  and  would  no  doubt  yield  as  much  to 
the  planter,  as  any  other  cultivation,  in  the  southern  section  of  the  Union,  and 
then  be  sold  to  the  consumer,  as  cheap  as  it  could  be  imported,  so  that  the  ex- 
pense of  freight,  insurance,  and  other  charges  incident  to  the  importation,  and 
a  small  duty  that  might  be  imposed  for  revenue,  would  be  ample  protection,  and 
enough  to  induce  the  extension  of  the  culture  beyond  the  wants  of  the  country 
and  leave  a  surplus  for  exportation.  If  true,  as  stated  in  Niles'  Register,  that 
sugar,  sold  at  t'i  dollars  per  cwt.,  will  give  to  each  hand  employed  G18  dollars, 
more  than  double  what,  I  believe,  is  considered  good  business  for  a  planter,  it  is 
evident  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  raising  sugar,  as  cheap  as  it  can  be  im- 
ported. And  the  present  would  seem  to  be  a  peculiarly  favorable  time  for  com- 
mencing a  reduction  of  the  duty,  as  the  price  of  sugar  is  now  depressed  below 
its  natural  value  on  the  actual  expense  of  producing  it  in  the  usual  places  of 
growth,  and  therefore  the  present  low  rates  can  only  be  temporary,  and  proba- 
bly the  price  would  rise  nearly  as  fast  as  the  duty  is  reduced,  supposing  the 
reduction  to  be  prospective  in  its  effect,  and  consequently  would  be  very  little, 
if  any,  felt  by  the  planter.  So  far  then  as  the  planter  is  concerned,  it  would  be 
decidedly  for  his  interest  that  the  duty  should  be  gradually  reduced.  Therefore 
upon  whatever  ground  you  place  the  continuance  of  the  present  enormous  duty 
upon  sugar,  now  itis  not  wanted  for  revenue,  it  is  untenable,  and  cannot  and 
ought  not  to  be  sustained  upon  any  principle." 


16 

amount  of  money  finds  a  profitable  employment  in  Louisiana,  the 
interest  of  which  is  annually  carried  back." — "  The  labor  is  drawn 
from  other  States,  and  abstracted  from  other  pursuits.  The  chief  ar- 
ticles of  food  are  furnished  in  the  West,  and  the  clothing  in  the  North. 
Animals,  iron,  tools  of  every  description,  machinery  to  a  vast  extent — 
in  fine,  almost  every  production  of  the  sea  and  land,  of  the  mines  and 
the  workshop,  are  required  for  the  production  of  sugar.  It  is  not 
therefore  a  local  but  a  general  interest." 

We  here  see  the  same  exaggeration,  as  to  the  importance  and 
magnitude  of  the  sugar  business,  as  has  been  shown  by  Mr.  Everett 
and  Mr.  Johnston,  in  attributing  an  additional  value  of  215,000,000 
dollars  to  an  equal  amount,  from  the  mere  abstraction  from  other 
occupations  of  the  labor  of  26,250,  out  of  a  population  of  2,153,370 
slaves,  and  devoting  it  to  the  culture  of  sugar ; — and  this,  too,  in  a 
period  of  25  or  30  years,  or  from  the  first  introduction  of  the  sugar- 
cane into  Louisiana. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  the  exchange  of  the  sugar  of  Louisiana 
for  the  products  and  manufactures  of  tbe  other  Slates,  like  the  ex- 
change of  cotton,  rice,  tobacco,  naval  stores  and  other  Southern  sta- 
ples, advantageous  alike  to  individuals  and  the  nation,  would  be  ben- 
eficial to  the  country, — were  no  tax  required  for  its  production.  But 
it  can  hardly  be  pretended  that  it  would  be  for  the  interest  of  the 
country  to  gain  the  power  of  making  this  exchange,  by  paying  a  dou- 
ble price  for  the  article  received  in  exchange. 

But  what  is  the  value  of  this  production,  which  is  held  up  to  the 
farmers,  planters,  merchants  and  mechanics  of  the  Union,  as  crea- 
ting such  a  demand  for  their  productions?  By  their  own  showing, 
it  is  below  5,000,000  dollars,  constituting,  according  to  Mr.  Everett's 
statement,  less  than  one  half  of  one  per  cent.,  of  the  annual  nation- 
al production,  and  perhaps  equal  to  1^  per  cent,  of  the  annual  pro- 
ductions of  the  Slave  States,  all  of  which  are  consumers  of  the  manu- 
factures and  productions  of  the  Northern,  Western  and  Middle 
States,  in  common  with  the  500  or  700  sugar  planters  of  Louisiana 
and  their  20,250  slaves. 

But,  with  regard  to  the  benefit  to  Northern  manufacturers  and 
farmers,  from  the  exchange  of  this  com  parti  lively  insignificant  pro- 
duction, for  the  support  of  which  they  are  taxed  in  a  sum  about 
equal  to  its  whole  value, — it  would  appear,  from  the  statements  of  its 
advocates,  that  the  principal  article  of  such  exchange  is  Southern 
slaves.  The  value  of  the  u  hole  crop  is  less  than  5,000,000  dollars, 
and  Mr.  Everett  state's  thai  .5, 00(),000  dollars  are  annually  paid  by 
the  sugar-planters,  to  other  States,  for  slaves. 

We  have  said  that  the  value  of  the  sugar  crop  was  comparatively 
insignificant.  It  is  so,  in  comparison  with  the  general  business  of 
the  country.  It  is,  nevertheless,  important  to  those  engaged  in  its 
cultivation  ;  and  precluded  as  we  are  by  high  duties  from  obtaining 


17 

much  elsewhere,  it  is  important  to  those  of  the  other  States  whose 
productions  are  exchanged  for  it. 

But  the  question  recurs, — Is  it  politic  or  just  to  compel  the  nation 
to  pay  a  lax  equal  to  four-fifths  of  the  whole  value  of  this  production, 
when  all  the  benefits  of  this  branch  of  business  may  be  realized  in 
another  way,  without  any  tax  whatever?  For  instance,  with  regard 
to  the  exchange  of  sugar  for  the  productions  of  the  Northern  and 
Middle  States  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Niles  and  Mr.  Carey,  that,  but  for 
the  existence  of  the  present  high  duty,  we  could  obtain  all  that  is 
now  raised  at  home,  at  a  great  saving  of  price,  and  in  exchange  for 
our  flour,  beef,  pork  and  manufactures.  The  former  gentleman  sug- 
gests that  a  reduction  of  l£  cents  per  lb.  of  the  duty,  while  it  would 
increase  the  revenue,  would  enable  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba  and  other 
West  India  islands  to  consume  nearly  double  the  amount  of  our  ag- 
ricultural and  manufactured  productions  which  they  now  take. 

This  is  a  correct  view  of  the'subject;  and,  could  the  advocates 
of  protection  free  themselves  from  prejudice  and  party  feeling,  they 
would  perceive  that  the  same  principles  are  applicable  to  cottons, 
woollens,  iron,  and  all  other  articles  now  excluded  by  high  duties. 
Were  these  duties  reduced,  a  larger  amount  of  these  articles  would 
be  imported,  though  by  no  means  to  the  extent  commonly  im- 
agined); but,  as  in  the  case  of  sugar,  they  would  all  be  paid  for  by 
increased  exportations  of  domestic  productions,  employing  an  equal 
quantity  of  labor,  and  at  a  saving  to  the  nation  of  the  whole  tax 
now  levied  to  exclude  them.  This  would  be  so  much  annual  ac- 
cumulation of  capital,*  beyond  the  amount  now  created  under  a 
restrictive  system. 

As  the  belief  that  producing  an  article  at  home  gives  more  em- 
ployment to  our  population  than  procuring  it  from  abroad,  is  one  of 
the  most  popular  errors  connected  with  the  existing  system,  we  will 
endeavor  to  elucidate  the  subject  still  further. 

The  proposition  of  our  opponents,  with  regard  to  sugar,  is,  that 
the  national  prosperity  is  more  promoted  by  raising  it  at  home,  than 
by  importing  it  from  abroad,  because,  in  the  former  case,  more  em- 
ployment is  given  to  domestic  labor  and  capital. 

It  will  indeed  require  more  labor  and  capital  to  manufacture 
cloths  costing  a  dollar  per  yard,  than  it  would  to  produce  the  arti- 

*  "  The  immediate  instrument  for  calling  labor  into  action  is  capital." — "  It  is 
a  settled  axiom  that  the  industry  of  a  nation  is  in  proportion  to  the  capital  de- 
voted to  its  maintenance.'' — New  Yuri;  Tariff  Convention  Address, 

If  this  Convention  were  sincere  in  laving  down  this  principle,  why  do  they 
persevere  in  upholding  a  system,  which,  by  compelling  the  nation  to  consume 
articles  at  double  the  price  they  could  be  obtained  for  abroad,  sinks  the  capital 
on  which,  as  they  truly  say,  labor  must  depend  for  its  support  ? 

In  the  case  of  sugar,  as  we  have  shown,  if  the  duty  of  3  cents  is  necessary  to 
keep  out  the  foreign  article,  there  is  an  annual  loss  to  the  nation  of  several 
millions  of  dollars  ;  and  so  in  regard  to  all  other  productions,  which  require  pro- 
tecting taxes  for  their  support. 

no.  r.  3 


18 

cles,  which  might  be  exchanged  for  foreign  cloths  of  the  same 
quality  at  50  cents  per  yard.  This,  however,  is  not,  we  presume,  the 
meaning  of  our  opponents.  It  would  hardly  be  urged  by  them,  as 
an  argument  for  the  prohibition  of  coffee,  that  the  hot-houses  and 
gardeners  required  to  raise  it  in  the  Middle  and  Northern  States,  would 
require  a  hundred  times  more  capital  and  a  hundred  times  the  num- 
ber of  hands,  that  are  required  to  produce  the  articles  now  exchang- 
ed for  it.  To  prove  anything,  their  assertion  must  mean,  that  more 
labor  and  capital  are  employed,  at  the  same  profit,  to  raise  a  thing 
at  home,  than  to  import  it  at  the  same  cost.  If,  however,  the  as- 
sertion be  true  where  the  cost  is  the  same,  it  is  so  far  from  being 
true  where  the  cost  is  greater  to  raise  than  to  import  an  article, 
that  we  contend  the  whole  difference  of  cost  is  just  so  much  loss  to 
the  nation ;  and  instead  of  giving  permanent  increased  employment 
to  labor  and  capital,  materially  diminishes  the  employment  for  labor, 
by  the  destruction  of  a  part  of  the  capital  upon  which  that  employ- 
ment entirely  depends. 

The  erroneous  doctrines  prevalent  respecting  the  injurious  conse- 
quences of  the  importation  of  foreign  goods,  arise  chiefly  from  over- 
looking this  leading  principle  ;  viz.  if  we  buy  we  must  pay  for  what 
we  buy ;  if  we  import  foreign  goods,  we  must  export  domestic 
products,  or  something  for  which  domestic  products  are  exchanged, 
to  pay  for  these  foreign  goods,  since,  as  Franklin  says,  "  we  cannot 
get  the  produce  of  other  countries,  unless  by  fraud  or  rapine,  with- 
out giving  the  produce  of  our  land  or  our  industry  in  exchange  for 
them."  It  is,  therefore,  a  necessary  consequence  of  every  importa- 
tion of  foreign  goods,  that  we  create  a  necessity  for  the  export  of  a 
quantity  of  domestic  productions  to  pay  for  them.  These  are  plain 
truths  and  hardly  worth  repeating,  but  they  are  every  day  denied 
by  men  who  have  an  interest  in  imposing  upon  the  public. 

Let  us  apply  these  principles  to  the  subject  under  discussion. 
We  require,  we  will  suppose,  1  50  000,000  lbs.  of  sugar  for  our 
yearly  consumption,  which  can  be  raised  in  Louisiana  at  6  cents 
per  lb.,  of  an  equal  quality  with  that  raised  in  the  West  Indies  at  3 
cents,  making  the  cost  in  the  former  case  $9,000,000  per  annum, 
and  in  the  latter  case  $4,500,000  per  annum.  If  we  obtain  our 
supply  from  Louisiana,  it  is  paid  for  by  provisions,  slaves  and  man- 
ufactures, to  the  amount  of  $9,000,000,  the  results  of  American 
capital  and  labor.  If,  however,  the  cultivation  were  discontinued 
in  Louisiana,  we  should  obtain  double  (he  quantity  from  the  West 
Indies  for  $9,000,000  in  provisions,  lumber  and  manufactures,  the 
results  of  American  capital  and  labor.  If,  however,  1  50,000,000  lbs. 
were  all  the  amount  required  for  our  consumption,  we  should  ob- 
tain this  for  4,500,000,  and  have  the  remaining  1,500,000  dollars, 
the  produce  of  domestic  labor  and  capital,  to  exchange  for  any  other 
articles  we  might  require.     Such  are  the  practical  results  of  the 


19 

free  trade  and  restrictive  systems,  and  yet  we  are  constantly  told 
that  the  latter  is  the  productive  and  the  former  the  unproductive 
system. 

So  it  is  with  salt,  iron,  cottons,  woollens,  and  all  other  protected 
articles.  If,  in  consequence  of  reduced  duiics,  we  should  import 
more,  our  exports  of  other  articles  would  increase  to  pay  for  them  • 
and  the  annual  saving  to  the  nation  would  be,  as  in  the  case  of  su- 
gar, equal  to  the  amount  of  taxes  now  levied  to  keep  down  foreign 
competition.  Every  law,  therefore,  preventing  the  importation  and 
consumption  of  foreign  goods,  diminishes,  in  precisely  the  same  de- 
gree, the  exportation  and  consumption  of  domestic  goods. 

Accordingly,  if  we  look  back  upon  our  import  and  export  trade, 
before  the  commencement  of  the  restrictive  system,  and  compare 
the  results  with  the  imports  and  exports  of  the  present  period,  the 
destructive  operation  of  the  exclusive  system  on  our  export  as  well 
as  import  trade,  will  be  at  once  apparent.  From  1799  to  1S01, 
inclusive,  the  average  value  of  our  imports,  with  a  population  of 
5,500,000,  was  93,895,142  dollars;  whilst  from  1828  to  1830,  in- 
clusive, the  average  value  of  our  imports,  with  a  population  of 
12,000,000,  was  but  77,959;757  dollars. 

Let  us  now  look  to  our  exports,  and  we  shall  see,  what  is  indeed 
obvious  to  every  reflecting  mind,  how  entirely  our  exports  and  im- 
ports depend  on  each  other.  From  1799  to  1807  inclusive,  nine 
years,  during  four  of  which  our  commerce  was  interrupted  by  an 
embargo,  our  exports  averaged  83,909,009  dollars.  For  the  last 
nine  years,  including  1830,  our  exports  have  averaged  but 
77,867,374  dollars,  and  for  the  last  three  years  the  average  is  but 
72,840,955  dollars.  A  similar  diminution  has  taken  place  in  our 
imports.  In  1830,  they  had  declined  to  70,876,920  dollars.  Yet, 
we  are  told  by  the  New  York  Tariff  Convention,  that  "  the  effect 
of  the  high  duty  system  has  been  to  make  our  navigation  and  com- 
merce flourish  beyond  all  expectation." 

We  have  thus  shown  the  operation  of  the  high  duty  regulations 
upon  our  export  trade,  in  reducing  them,  in  twenty-five  years,  from 
nearly  84,000,000  dollars,  to  about  73,000,000  dollars.  But  this 
presents  but  a  very  inadequate  idea  of  the  withering  effects  of  what 
is  termed  the  "  American  System  "  upon  our  export  commerce. 
During  this  period,  our  population  has  doubled,  and  our  wealth  has 
increased  even  beyond  our  population.  The  inference  is  irresistible, 
that  had  the  same  free  trade  system  been  continued, our  exports  would 
have  swelled  to  140,000,000,  150,000,000  or  160,000,000  dollars. 
Such  are  the  different  results  of  the  free  trade  and  the  restrictive 
systems  ! 

The  restrictive  system,  then,  does  not  give  increased  employment 
to  domestic  capital  and  industry,  but,  on  the  other  hand,  lessens  the 
value  of  home  productions,  by  forcing  our  citizens  to  abandon  those 


20 

pursuits,  which,  from  our  soil,  climate,  and  other  circumstances 
would  render  the  most  profitable  results,  for  those  which  render 
results  less  profitable.  It  compels  them,  by  legislative  acts,  to 
raise  sugar,  which,  if  what  is  said  of  its  cost  be  true,  is  unsuited 
to  our  soil  and  climate,  instead  of  procuring  it  abroad  in  exchange 
for  productions  which  are  suited  to  our  soil  and  climate  ;  and  there- 
by doubles  the  cost  of  a  necessary  of  life,  chiefly  used  by  the  poor- 
er classes  ; — and  this,  without  additional  employment  to  the  cap- 
ital or  labor  of  the  country. 

The  whole  theory  of  the  restrictive  system  proceeds  on  the  false 
maxim,  that  it  is  expedient  for  government  to  direct  the  pursuits  of 
individuals.  But,  as  one  *  says,  who  has  reflected  deeply  upon 
this  subject,  ;'  to  individuals  this  policy  is  as  injurious  as  it  is  to 
government.  A  system  of  artificial  government  protection  leads 
the  people  to  too  much  reliance  on  government ;  if  left  to  their  own 
choice  of  pursuits,  they  depend  on  their  own  skill  and  their  own  in- 
dustry. But  if  government  essentially  affects  their  occupations  by 
its  system  of  bounties  and  preferences,  it  is  natural,  when  in  distress, 
that  they  should  call  on  government  for  relief.  Hence  a  perpetual 
contest  carried  on  between  the  different  interests  of  society.  Agri- 
culturalists taxed  to-day  to  sustain  manufacturers — commerce 
taxed  to-morrow,  to  sustain  agriculture,  and  then  more  impositions 
perhaps  on  both  manufactures  and  commerce  to  sustain  agriculture  ; 
and  when  government  has  exhausted  its  invention  in  these  modes 
of  legislation,  it  finds  the  result  less  favorable  than  in  the  original 
and  natural  state  of  things.  He  could  hardly  conceive  of  any 
thing  worse  than  a  policy  which  should  place  the  great  interests  of 
this  country  in  hostility  to  one  another  ;  a  policy  which  should  keep 
them  in  constant  conflict  and  bring  them  every  year  to  fight  their 
battles  in  the  committee  rooms  of  the  House  of  Representatives  at 
Washington.  We  see  that  the  most  enlightened  nations  which  have 
adopted  this  artificial  system  are  tired  of  it.  We  see  the  most  dis- 
tinguished men  in  England,  for  instance,  of  all  parties,  condemning 
it."  Again — "  We  hear  the  first  minister  in  Great  Britain  give  his 
opinion  emphatically  that  England  has  become  what  she  is,  not  by 
means  of  this  system,  but  in  spite  of  it.  Why,  then,  are  we  so 
eager  to  adopt  a  system  which  others  who  have  tried  it  would  be 
glad  to  repudiate  ?  Can  any  thing,  he  would  ask,  in  this  general 
view  of  the  subject,  be  more  unwise  than  that  this  country  should 
adopt  such  a  course  of  policy  ?  A  policy  which,  he  would  say,  no 
nation  had  entered  upon  and  pursued  without  having  found  it  to  be 
a  policy  which  could  not  bejolloived  without  great  national  injury, 
nor  abandoned  without  extensive  individual  ruin.  To  leave  men  to 
their  own  discretion,  to  conduct  their  own  concerns  by  their  own 

•  Mr.  Webster's  speech  in  opposition  to  the  Tariff  of  1824. 


21 

skill  and  prudence,  and  to  employ  their  capital  and  their  labor  in 
such  occupations  as  they  themselves  find  most  expedient,  has  been 
found  the  wisest,  as  it  is  the  simplest  course  of  political  legislation. 
As  there  is  an  order  in  the  natural  world  which  holds  all  things  in 
place, — as  the  air  we.  breathe  is  wisely  combined  and  compounded 
for  our  use  by  the  course  of  nature, — so  there  is  a  principle  of  regu- 
lation, a  sort  of  vis  medicatrix  naturce  in  the  social  world.  Excess 
corrects  itself.  If  there  be  too  much  commerce,  it  will  be  dimin- 
ished. If  there  be  too  few  manufactures,  they  will  be  increased, 
with  but  ordinary  care  and  protection.  For  his  part  he  believed 
that  however  divided,  the  principle  of  leaving  such  things  very  much 
to  their  own  course  in  a  country  like  ours,  was  the  only  true  policy  ; 
and  that  we  could  no  more  improve  the  order,  and  habit,  and  com- 
position of  society,  by  an  artificial  balancing  of  trades  and  occupa- 
tions, than  we  could  improve  the  natural  atmosphere  by  means  of 
the  condensers  and  rarifiers  of  the  chemists." 

Again — "  For  his  part,  he  did  not  consider  a  great  manufacturing 
population  a  benefit  to  be  purchased  at  so  much  cost.  He  thought 
there  were  great  evils  in  it.*  When  it  shall  come  naturally  and  in 
the  progress  of  things,  we  must  meet  it.  But  why  hasten  it  ?  What 
we  see  of  it  elsewhere  did  not  recommend  it  to  us.  The  great  ob- 
ject of  good  government  was  individual  happiness,  and  this  to  be 
general  required  something  like  an  equality  in  condition.  He  was 
not  advancing  any  agrarian  notions ;  but  he  considered  that  those 
employments  which  tended  to  make  the  poor  both  more  numerous 
and  more  poor,  and  the  rich  less  in  number  but  perhaps  more  rich, 
were  not  employments  fit  for  us  to  encourage  by  taxing  other  em- 
ployments. And  this  he  believed  would  be  the  tendency  of  the 
manufacturing  system,  pushed  to  excess.  At  present  it  may  prob- 
ably be  true,  that  the  manufacturing  capitals,  being  generally  a  cor- 

*  In  justice  to  many  of  the  manufacturing  capitalists,  in  New  England, 
whose  pretensions  and  encroachments  we  are  attempting  to  resist,  it  ought  here 
to  be  mentioned,  that  generally,  the  most  judicious  and  liberal  arrangements  are 
made,  for  the  diffusion  of  instruction  among  the  people  in  their  employ.  And 
there  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  the  business  of  manufacturing,  in  the  hands  of 
such  men,  will  flourish  to  a  greater  extent  than  in  any  country,  except  Great 
Britain,  without  the  aid  of  any  further  duties  than  such  as  would  be  satisfactory 
to  the  national  party.  We  know  that  some  particular  branches  of  manufactur- 
ing, depending  on  more  experience  and  skill  than  we  now  possess,  would  be 
diminished.  But  this  would  only  be  for  a  short  period — as  the  time  cannot  be 
distant  when  the  business  of  manufacturing  will  be  so  well  understood,  and  con- 
ducted with  so  much  skill  and  economy  in  the  populous  parts  of  the  United 
States,  that  no  protection  will  be  required  ;  and  it  is  the  tendency  of  a  free  trade 
system  to  accelerate  this  perfection  of  the  manufacturing  arts. 

There  are,  under  the  existing  system,  many  branches  of  manufacturing  that 
are  diminished  or  ruined  by  high  duties  on  the  raw  materials.  A  reduction  of 
duties  would  be  beneficial  to  them  ;  and,  in  truth,  we  know  it  to  be  the  opinion 
ot  some  of  the  most  enlightened  manufacturers,  that  under  a  Tariff"  of  moderate 
duties,  there  would  be  more  manufacturing  capital  and  labor  put  in  motion  than 
can  be  employed  under  the  existing  system. 


22 

porate  property,  were  holden  in  many  hands.  But  if  the  capital 
now  employed  in  commerce  were  also  to  be  put  into  manufactures, 
it  would,  in  the  end,  he  should  think,  get  the  ascendancy,  because 
it  would  be  individual  capital,  and,  according  to  our  experience, 
would  be  therefore  better  managed.  Manufacturing  capital  comes 
in  the  end  to  be  owned  but  by  few.  It  does  not  therefore  encour- 
age industry  like  capital  employed  in  some  other  pursuits." 

These  are  sound  doctrines,  and  were  so  considered  when  promul- 
gated from  that  quarter  whence  the  existing  system  now  derives  its 
most  efficient  support.  But,  it  is  said,  many  who  formerly  acquiesced 
in  these  doctrines,  have  since  changed  their  opinions.  We  do  not 
deny  that  such  may  be  the  fact.  But  may  not  the  solution  of  their 
present  course  be  found  in  the  change  of  their  political  and  pecuni- 
ary relations  to  this  question,  rather  than  in  the  change  of  their  opin- 
ions ?  The  doctrines  themselves,  deserted  and  assailed  as  they  are, 
by  those  who  once  sustained  them,  are  unaltered  and  unalterable, 
for  they  are  founded  on  the  eternal  principles  of  truth  and  justice. 

5.  Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  sugar  duty,  has  been  advanced 
by  the  planters,  and  sustained  with  much  zeal  by  the  Legislature  of 
Louisiana;  viz.  that  the  lands  on  which  the  cane  grows  cannot  be 
turned  to  such  profitable  account,  should  its  cultivation  be  abandoned. 
This,  to  be  sure,  is  quite  a  sufficient  reason  that  the  owners  of  the 
cane  lands  should  wish  a  con'.inuance  of  the  bounty  ;  but  we  doubt 
if  it  will  satisfy  any  impartial  mind,  either  that  it  is  politic  or  just. 

Throughout  the  whole  of  our  remarks,  we  have  considered  duties 
for  the  protection  of  home  productions  against  cheaper  foreign  ones, 
as  virtually  a  bounty  to  the  home  producers.  We  are  aware  that 
this  has  been  denied  ;  but  we  should  be  glad  to  learn  the  difference 
between  a  law  which  compels  the  nation  to  pay  2,000,000  dollars, 
in  the  form  of  impost  to  the  planters  of  Louisiana  for  their  sugar, 
more  than  it  could  be  procured  for  elsewhere,  and  a  law  which 
should  grant  to  those  same  planters  an  annual  sum  of  2,000,000 
dollars  from  the  public  chest,  under  the  name  of  a  bounty. 

This  is  the  view  taken  in  the  late  Tariff  Convention  in  New  York, 
where  propositions  were  made  and  supported  by  several  members 
for  a  system  of  bounties  to  promote  the  introduction  and  extension  of 
various  branches  of  industry.  Hamilton  expresses  himself  decided- 
ly upon  this  point.  I  ie  says,  "  Protecting  duties  evidently  amount 
to  a  virtual  bounty  on  the  domestic  fabrics,  since,  by  enhancing  the 
charges  on  foreign  articles,  they  enable  the  national  manufacturers 
to  undersell  all  their  foreign  competitors."  Mr.  Webster,  in  his 
speech  in  1820,  in  opposition  to  a  further  increase  of  duties,  says, 
in  reference  to  a  certain  kind  of  cotton  goods,  "  the  duty  is  near 
83  per  rent .  on  the  cost  of  the  article  :  this  is  so  much  bounty  to  the 
home  manufacturers."  Another  eminent  man,  whose  opinions  will 
be  respected  by  our  opponents,  Mr.  H.  G.  Otis,  in  opposing  an  in- 


23 

crease  of  duties,  whilst  a  member  of  Congress,  in  1820,  says, — 
"  The  Bill  before  Congress  was  a  manifesto  of  the  disposition  of  a 
committee  of  one  branch  of  the  Legislature  to  listen  to  the  claims 
of  the  manufacturers  for  a  bounty  of  five  millions  of  dollars  in  the 
outset."  We  might  add  other  high  authorities  that  protecting  du- 
ties and  bounties  are  virtually  the  same. 

It  is  undoubtedly  beneficial  to  Louisiana,  as  well  as  to  the  sugar 
planters,  that  all  her  soil  should  be  brought  into  cultivation ;  and  it 
would  be  equally  so  with  other  states  having  lands  which  are,  at 
this  moment,  uncultivated,  for  want  of  a  protecting  duty  or  a  boun- 
ty. Let  us  imagine  that  some  of  the  planters  of  North  Carolina, 
residing  in  the  least  fertile  parts  of  that  state,  where  as  much  capi- 
tal and  labor  are  required  to  raise  20  bushels  of  grain  as  would 
produce  40  in  a  richer  soil,  should  apply  to  Congress  for  a  bounty 
of  50  cents  per  bushel  on  their  corn,  to  enable  them  to  compete 
in  the  home  market  of  that  state  w  ith  the  cheaper  corn  of  the 
neighboring  states  ;  and  thus  to  sustain  the  value  of  lands,  which, 
without  such  protection,  would  be  abandoned.  It  cannot  be  sup- 
posed that  such  an  application  would  be  sustained,  even  by  the 
representatives  of  Louisiana.  Yet  the  corn-planters  of  North  Caro- 
lina would  have  the  same  right  to  a  bounty  on  corn  that  the  planters 
of  Louisiana  have  to  a  bounty  on  sugar.  What  are  the  reasons  al- 
leged in  favor  of  the  bounty  on  sugar? — That  it  employs  domestic 
labor  and  capital;  reduces  the  price  of  a  necessary  of  life  by  in- 
creased competition  ;  extends  the  demand  for  slaves,  and  thus  sustains 
the  value  of  that  species  of  property  ;  and  finally,  keeps  lands  under 
cultivation,  which,  without  that  bounty,  would  be  abandoned. 

Now  these  reasons,  as  far  as  they  apply  to  the  bounty  on  sugar, 
would  apply  precisely  to  a  bounty  on  the  corn  of  North  Carolina ; 
she  has  the  same  right  to  a  bounty  on  her  corn,  that  Louisiana  has 
to  a  bounty  on  her  sugar.  Admit  the  principle,  that  a  particular 
class  of  men  or  a  particular  state  has  a  right  to  government  aid, 
for  the  prosecution  of  a  business,  which  could  not  be  prosecuted 
without  it,  and  there  is  no  limit  to  the  rightful  claims  of  individuals 
and  states.  If  Congress  were  right  in  acceding  to  the  first  de- 
mands, they  would  be  wrong  in  refusing  others  of  a  similar  nature. 

"  There  is,  however,"  as  has  been  stated  in  the  Address  to  the 
People  by  the  Free  Trade  Convention,  "  a  large  and  respectable 
portion  of  the  American  people  who  not  only  consider  the  system  of 
granting  bounties  to  one  class  of  men  at  the  expense  of  all  the  rest, 
as  impolitic  and  unjust,  but  as  unconstitutional."  They  admit  the 
power  of  Congress  to  lay  and  collect  such  duties,  as  they  may  deem 
necessary  for  the  purposes  of  revenue,  and  within  these  limits,  so  to 
arrange  these  duties  as  incidentally,  and  to  that  extent,  to  give  pro- 
tection to  the  manufacturer.  They  deny  the  right  to  convert  what 
they  denominate  the  incidental,  into  the  principal  power,  and  tran- 


\ 


24 

scending  the  limits  of  revenue,  to  impose  an  additional  duty,  sub- 
stantively and  exclusively  for  the  purpose  of  affording  that  protec- 
tion. They  admit  that  Congress  may  countervail  the  regulations  of 
a  foreign  power,  which  may  be  hostile  to  our  commerce;  but  they 
deny  their  authority  permanently  to  inhibit  all  importation,  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  the  home  market  exclusively  to  the  domestic 
manufacture, — thereby  destroying  the  commerce  they  were  en- 
trusted to  regulate,  and  fostering  an  interest  with  which  they  have 
no  constitutional  power  to  interfere.  That  portion  of  our  fellow- 
citizens,  of  whom  we  speak,  do  not,  therefore,  hesitate  to  affirm, 
that,  if  the  right  to  enact  the  Tariff  law  of  1828  be  referred  to  the 
authority  to  lay  and  collect  duties,  &lc,  it  is  a  palpable  abuse  of  the 
taxing  power,  which  was  conferred  for  the  purpose  of  revenue ; — 
if  to  the  authority  to  regulate  commerce,  it  is  as  obvious  a  perversion 
of  that  power,  since  it  may  be  extended  to  an  utter  annihilation  of 
the  object  which  it  was  intended  to  protect." 

In  support  of  these  just  and  common  sense  and  constitutional  views 
of  an  instrument,  which  was  intended  to  be,  and  which  in  fact  is,  as 
fully  open  to  the  comprehension  of  thousands,  and  we  hope  of  mil- 
lions, as  to  that  of  the  most  learned  jurists  in  the  land,  we  could  cite 
the  opinions  of  men,  both  living  and  dead,  whose  clearness  of  appre- 
hension, purity  and  patriotism,  no  one  can  doubt.  But  such  are 
the  prejudices  and  passions  enlisted  in  this  cause,  that  it  would  be 
in  vain  to  refer  to  the  authority  of  men,  however  gifted,  who  have 
been  opposed  to  the  protecting  system,  or  even  of  those  who  have 
stood  in  the  most  impartial  and  disinterested  relation  to  it.  We  re- 
fer then,  to  the  opinions  of  one  who  cannot  be  suspected  of  want 
of  discernment  in  construing  the  meaning  of  our  constitution,  since 
he  has  been  so  ofteu  cited  as  an  authority  in  defence  of  monopolies 
and  restrictions,  and  who  lias  shown  no  deficiency  of  zeal  in  sustain- 
ing the  existing  system  ;  since  he  has  gone  further  upon  the  economi- 
cal question,  than  its  most  intelligent  advocates  could  desire.  We 
mean  Mr.  Madison,  for  whose  modern  opinions  we  refer  the  reader 
to  his  letters  to  Mr.  Cabell. 

In  the  debate  on  the  fishery  bill,  in  1792,  Mr.  Madison  observed, 
in  the  course  of  some  remarks  upon  the  regulation  of  trade,  "  Seve- 
ral arguments  have  been  advanced  to  show  that  because  in  the  reg- 
ulation of  trade,  indirect  and  eventual  encouragement  is  given  to 
manufactures,  therefore  Congress  have  power  to  give  money  in  di- 
rect bounties,  or  grant  it  in  any  other  way  that  would  answer  the 
same  purpose.  But  surely,  sir,  there  is  a  great  and  obvious  differ- 
ence, which  it  cannot  be  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  ;  a  duty  upon 
imported  implements  of  husbandry  would,  in  its  operation,  be  an 
indirect  tax  on  exported  produce;  but  will  any  one  say  that  by  vir- 
tue of  a  mere  power  to  lay  duties  on  imports,  Congress  might  go 
directly  to  the  produce  or  implements  of  agriculture,  or  to  the  arti- 


25 

cles  exported  ?  It  is  true  duties  on  exports  are  expressly  prohibited  ; 
but  if  there  were  no  article  prohibiting  them,  a  power  directly  to 
tax  exports  could  never  be  deduced  from  a  power  to  tax  imports, 
although  such  a  power  might  directly  or  incidentally  affect  exports." 

"  A  power  directly  to  tax  exports,"  says  Mr.  Madison,  "  could 
never  be  deduced  from  a  power  to  tax  imports  ;  " — nor,  as  we  con- 
tend, can  a  power  to  destroy  trade  and  to  cut  off  the  sources  of  rev- 
enue, be  deduced  from  a  power  to  raise  revenue  and  to  regulate 
trade.  In  other  words,  a  power  granted  to  enact  laws  for  the  ac- 
complishment of  certain  specified  ends,  cannot  be  construed  into  a 
right  to  enact  laws  for  the  subversion  of  those  very  ends. 

The  principles  here  asserted  by  Mr.  Madison  are  in  conformity 
with  those  maintained  in  the  Address  of  the  Philadelphia  Conven- 
tion. It  is  there  admitted  that  Congress  hare  the  right  to  give  such 
an  encouragement  to  manufactures,  or  any  other  interests,  as  may 
be  incidentally  derived  from  laws  passed  for  the  bona  fide  purpose 
of  regulating  trade  and  raising  revenue.  But  it  is  denied,  "  that 
Congress  have  the  power  to  give  money  in  direct  bounties,  or  to 
grant  it  in  any  other  way  that  would  answer  the  same  purpose ;  " 
and  in  this  they  agree  with  Mr.  Madison. 

The  advocates  of  restriction  and  monopoly  have  generally  argued 
the  question,  as  if  their  opponents  denied  the  right  of  Congress  to 
pass  laws  for  the  regulation  of  trade  and  the  collection  of  revenue. 
Such,  however,  is  not  the  fact.  The  national  party  admit,  most 
fully,  that  Congress  have  the  right  to  pass  laws  having  clearly  and 
bona  fide  these  objects  in  view  ;  but  they  deny  the  right  of  Congress 
to  enact  laws  nominally  for  the  purpose  of  regulating  trade  and  rais- 
ing revenue,  but  in  truth  for  the  purposes  of  annihilating  both  trade 
and  revenue  ;  and  which  cannot  accomplish  the  ends  for  which  they 
were  enacted,  without  producing  these  effects. 

We  now  offer  another  authority,  that  of  one  who  certainly  has 
not  been  unfriendly  to  the  advocates  of  exclusion.  We  mean  Mr. 
Webster.  Among  the  resolutions  passed  in  1820,  at  a  meeting  of 
manufacturers,  merchants,  Sic,  opposed  to  any  further  increase 
to  the  then  existing  duties,  which  resolves  were  advocated  by  Mr.  W., 
we  find  the  following.  "  Resolved  ;  That  no  objection  ought  ever 
to  be  made  to  any  amount  of  taxes  equally  apportioned  and  im- 
posed for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue,  necessary  for  the  support 
of  government ;  but  that  taxes  imposed  on  the  people  for  the  sole 
benefit  of  any  one  class  of  men,  are  equally  inconsistent  with 
the  principles  of  our  constitution,  and  with  sound  policy." 

In  a  speech  in  support  of  this  and  other  resolutions,  Mr.  Web- 
ster observed, — "  It  would  hardly  be  contended  that  Congress  pos- 
sessed that  sort  of  general  power  by  which  it  might  declare  that 
particular  occupations  should  be  pursued  in  society,  and  that  others 
should  not.     If  such  power  belonged  to  any   government  in  this 

ko.  v.  4 


26 

country,  it  certainly  did  not  belong  to  the  General  Government. 
The  question  was,  therefore,  and  he  thought  it  a  very  serious  ques- 
tion, whether  in  laying  duties,  under  the  authority  to  lay  imposts, 
obviously  given  for  the  purposes  of  revenue,  Congress  can  reason- 
ably and  fairly  lose  sight  of  these  purposes  entirely,  and  levy  duties 
for  other  objects.  Congress  may  tax  the  land  ;  but  it  would  be  a 
strange  proposition  if  Congress  should  be  asked  to  lay  a  land  tax 
for  the  direct  purpose  of  withdrawing  capital  from  agriculture,  and 
sending  those  engaged  in  it  to  other  pursuits.  The  power,  howev- 
er, exists  in  one  case,  as  much  as  in  the  other.  It  is  not  easy,  it 
must  be  confessed,  to  draw  a  limit  in  such  cases,  and  therefore  per- 
haps it  may  be  presumed,  in  all  cases,  that  the  power  was  exercised 
for  the  legal  purpose,  the  collection  of  revenue,  and  that  whatever 
consequences  ensue  must  be  regarded  as  incidental  and  consequen- 
tial to  the  exercise  of  the  power.  Still  it  was  a  question  very  fit, 
in  his  judgment,  to  be  considered  by  Congress,  whether  it  was  a 
fair  and  just  exercise  of  power  to  elevate  the  incidental  far  above 
the  primary  object,  or,  to  speak  more  properly,  to  pursue  the  latter, 
in  utter  disregard  of  the  former." 

Take  this  passage  in  connexion  with  the  resolution,  denouncing 
taxes  imposed  on  the  people  for  the  sole  benefit  of  any  one  class  as  in- 
consistent with  the  principles  of  our  constitution,  and  there  can  be  no 
doubt,  as  we  apprehend,  of  the  entire  coincidence  of  Mr.  Webster's 
opinions  with  those  maintained  in  the  Address.  If,  as  he  says,  there 
is  such  a  power  as  now  contended  for,  it  certainly  does  not  belong 
to  the  General  Government.  But,  as  Mr.  Webster  truly  remarks, 
it  is  not  easy,  in  some  cases,  to  draw  the  line  between  duties  levied 
for  revenue  and  those  imposed  for  other  objects ;  that  is  to  say,  for 
the  purpose  of  excluding  the  cheaper  foreign  commodities,  that  the 
nation  may  be  compelled  to  purchase  the  dearer  domestic  commo- 
dities. If  however,  an  act  imposing  duties  should  contain  provisions 
avowedly  prohibitory,  and  defended  as  such  by  the  party  through 
whose  means  it  was  obtained,  then  all  doubt  ceases. 

The  act  of  lb28  was  intended  to  be  prohibitory  *  on  many  of  the 

*  That  it  was  the  intention  of  most  of  the  advocates  of  the  American  system 
to  make  the  act  of  1828  entirely  prohibitory  as  to  many  leading  articles  of  con- 
■nmption,  u  very  apparent  from  the  tenor  of  their  speeches  in  Congress,  and  from 
some  of  the  rates  established  hy  that  act,  which  range  on  woollens  and  iron  from 
•10  tu  -.'.".(I  pa-  cent.  The  delegation  of  IVIasachusetts,  the  most  influential  mem- 
bers of  which  were  concerned  in  manufactures,  and  were  known  to  be  favorable 
to  a  further  increase  of  duties  on  the  New  England  staple  manufactures,  voted 
in  favour  of  an  amendment  to  the  act  of  IM-JS,  which  would  have  carried  the 
rates  of  duty  on  woollens  beyond  what  they  now  are  ;  and  they  finally  voted 
Ojgainst  that  act,  leaving  it  to  he  inferred,  that  they  did  so,  not  because  the  du- 
ties it  imposed  were  too  high,  but  because  they  were  too  low.  Their  object 
was  a  total  prohibition  of  cottons  and  woollens,  and  a. free  trade  in  molasses 
and  wool,  articles  of  great  consumption  in  Massachusetts.  Their  theory  was, 
that  taxation  reduced  Die  prices  .,f  all  articles  manufactured  by  themselves  and 
their  constituents  ;  but  when  this  theory  was  applied  to  such  articles  as  were 


27 

leading  articles  of  consumption.  We  have  shown,  by  the  small  pro- 
portion of  woollens  and  other  articles  which  are  now  imported,  in 
comparison  with  the  amount   produced  at  home,  that  it  has  nearly 

raised  in  other  sections,  such  as  hemp,  wool  and  molasses,  they  condemned  the 
application  of  it  as  not  leading  to  correct  results  ;  and  ascribed  the  raising  of  the 
duties  on  these  articles,  to  Western  hostility  and  Southern  malevolence. 

The  following  extract  from  the  debates  of  the  New  Xork  Tariff  Convention, 
expresses  the  opinion  of  one  of  the  best  informed  and  most  influential  manufac- 
turers in  New  England,  in  regard  to  immediately  carrying  out  the  system  to  an 
entire  prohibition. 

"  Mr.  Coxf.  said,  the  gentleman  had  shown  the  abuses,  but  not  the  remedy. 
Two  might  be  proposed  :  one  would  be,  to  allow  the  government  to  take  the 
goods,  if  the  owner  was  dissatisfied  with  the  valuation  :  the  other,  to  value  the 
goods  at  the  port  where  they  were  entered. 

"  Mr.  BROWS  observed.  '  that  the  Committee  had  had  that  subject  under  their 
consideration.  It  has  been  suggested  that  an  ail  valorem  duty  would  remedy  ma- 
ny of  the  existing  evils;  but  it  was  not  the  policy  of  this  Convention,  by  sug- 
gestingremedies,  to  set  the  whole  subject  again  afloat.  Ifthat  plan  were  adopted, 
it  must  be  evident  that  the  present  rate  of  duties  would  be  loo  high — they  would 
amount  to  prohibition.  For  himself,  he  believed  the  country  would  be  a  gainer 
by  even  that;  but  he  did  not  suppose  such  could  at  present  be  the  opinion  of  a 
majority  of  the  people.  Many  articles  were  now  totally  prohibited — especially 
chemicals,  some  of  which,  with  a  duty  of  four  cents  a  pound,  were  in  market  at 
that  price.  10,000  tons  of  crude  brimstone,  and  2000  of  salt-petre,  were  import- 
ed last  3'ear  for  the  purpose  of  manufacturing  acids,  used  in  the  bleaching  of 
cotton  and  the  staining  of  calico — incidental  branches  of  trade  which  had  grown  up 
out  of  the  system  of  home  industry,  and  which  enjoyed  a  protection  amounting 
to  total  prohibition.  The  Convention,  however,  would  not  take  the  ground  of 
advocating  ;iny  alterations  or  improvements  of  the  law  :  let  it  only  be  enforced 
and  it  was  sufficient.'' 

It  is  here  admitted  by  one  of  the  leading  advocates  of  the  System,  that  "  many 
articles  are  now  totally  prohibited,''  and  that  in  his  opinion  the  prohibitory  en- 
actments should  be  extended  ;  though  he  did  not  suppose  that,  at  present,  the  ma- 
jority of  the  people  were  of  a  similar  opinion. 

This,  we  apprehend,  is  the  opinion  of  many  of  the  restrictive  part)'.  But  why 
should  they  wait  for  the  people,  when  the  whole  legislative  measures  of  the  gov- 
ernment on  this  question,  are  accommodated  to  the  views  of  the  vested  inter- 
ests ?  Why  not  carry  out  the  principles  of  the  "American  System,''  to  utter 
prohibition,  at  which  it  must  at  last  arrive  ?  This  is  a  scheme  that  would  find 
support  in  the  highest  quarter,  if  any  judgment  may  be  formed  of  the  opinions 
of  the  administration  from  Mr.  Secretary  McLean's  Report,  who,  admitting  the 
necessity  of  acting  in  a  spirit  of  conciliation  and  concession  in  re-adjusting  the 
system  of  duties,  as  it  regards  the  different  sections  and  the  nation  at  large, 
who  are  Buffering  from  its  operation,  concludes  with  recommending  an  adhe- 
rence to  those  features  in  the  act  of  1828,  which  stand  most  in  need  of  mod- 
ification, lie  would  continue  the  duties  on  wool  and  woollens,  cottons,  sugar, 
iron,  and  hemp,  which  run  from  'J")  to  200  per  rent  ;  and  this  would  of  course 
render  it  necessary  to  repeal  the  duties  on  wines,  silks,  spices,  &C.  that  there 
may  notbeiin  excess  of  revenue.  In  other  words,  the  Secretary  would  burden 
the  necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  with  a  heavy  taxation,  while  super- 
fluities and  luxuries  are  to  go  free, — thus  sustaining  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  the  "  American  System  "  (of  which  Mr.  McLean  has  been  a  zeal- 
ous advocate)  ;  namely ,  taxing  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few — the  poor  and 
powerless  for  the  benefit  of  the  rich  and  powerful. 

It  is  said,  in  the  New  York  Tariff  Convention  Address,  that  "sugar  and  iron, 
hemp  and  lead,  wool  and  cotton  and  other  productions  of  our  soil,  are  in  effect 
the  government  that  holds  us  together."  The  Secretary  sustains  this  view  of 
the  matter.  But  we  apprehend  that  what  Mr.  McLean  calls  "  adjusting  the 
question  on  practical,  rather  than  on  abstract  principles  of  political   economy*' 


28 

effected  its  object.  Still  it  is  a  constant  subject  of  complaint  that 
the  foreign  articles  are  not  entirely  excluded.  Indeed  it  is  obvious 
that  such  must  be  the  point  to  which  the  prohibitory  system  will  be 
carried.  If  the  manufacturers  of  nine-tenths  of  the  articles  of  do- 
mestic production  are  protected  by  legislation,  on  what  ground  can 
a  like  protection  be  refused  to  the  manufacturers  of  the  remaining 
tenth  ? 

Not  only  so,  but  if  the  existing  system  is  not  changed  to  our 
former  free  trade  system,  it  must  be  extended  to  all  such  articles  as 
can  be  manufactured  or  produced  at  home  ;  so  that,  eventually,  our 
importations  must  be  limited  to  those  few  articles  which  cannot,  with 
any  degree  of  protection,  be  manufactured  or  produced  here.  The 
objection  that  our  soil  and  climate,  are  not  adapted  to  the  production 
of  an  article,  cannot  be  consistently  urged  against  granting  it  pro- 
tection. There  are  but  few  articles  in  regard  to  which  these  disad- 
vantages would  not  be  more  than  counterbalanced  by  duties  of 
100  per  cent. ;  and  we  now  grant  a  greater  protection  than  this  to  su- 
gar, low  woollens,  low  priced  wool,  English  raw  iron,  iron  wire,  and 
various  other  articles.  The  object  of  the  "  American  System"  is  not 
to  obtain  articles  at  a  cheap  rate,  but  to  produce  them  at  home,  to 

will  hardly  suit  even  the  high  Tariff  party,  since  among  the  enumerated  articles 
requiring  protection,  he  has  omitted  spirits,  salt,  glass  and  glass  ware,  flax,  lin- 
ens, paper,  oil,  molasses,  hard  ware,  iron  wares  of  all  sorts,  slate,  coal,  can- 
dles, earthen  wares,  hats,  shoes,  boots,  saddler}',  and  in  truth  an  infinite  variety 
of  other  articles,  not  manufactured  by  men  of  wealth,  whose  power  and  influence 
are  brought  to  bear  upon  the  most  interesting  political  questions  of  the  day,  but 
by  a  useful  and  industrious  class  of  men,  who  have  the  same  right  to  protection 
that  iron  masters,  sugar  planters,  and  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers  pos- 
sess. If  the  system  of  high  and  prohibitory  duties  is  a  wise  and  an  honest  sys- 
tem, let  it  be  general  and  not  exclusively  confined  to  particular  classes  or  to 
particular  sections. 

But  it  may  be  that  the  Secretary  means  to  provide  for  this  class  of  manufac- 
turers by  bounties,  "a  system  which  (he  says)  sound  policy  would  recom- 
mend." 

There  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  adjustment  of  this  important  and  dangerous 
question,  there  must  be  a  liberal  spirit  of  conciliation,  concession,  and  compro- 
mise ;  but  who  is  there,  that  can  discern  in  Mr.  McLean's  Report, any  thing  but  an 
unlimited  submission  to  the  most  extravagant  demands  that  have  yet  been  mado 
upon  the  national  party  ? 

In  justice  to  our  opponents,  we  must  say,  we  never  have  conversed  with  an  in. 
telligent  and  liberal  minded  man,  who  did  not  condemn  the  suggestions  of  Mr. 
McLean,  as  the  basis  of  an  adjustment  of  this  question,  as  unjust  and  impracti- 
cable. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  of  all  foreign  articles  now  imported,  such  as  wines, 
cottons,  woollens,  iron,  oil,  silk,  sugar,  Bait,  spirits,  molasses,  &c.  amounting  to 
(50  or  70,000,000  dollars;  40  to  50,000,000  dollars  could  be  produced  at  home, 
under  rates  of  duty  less  than  those  now  granted  on  woollens.  Consequently, 
if  it  be  granted  that  Congress  has  rightfully  I  lie  power  of  laying  protecting  duties, 
application  will  be  mnde  for  extended  protection,  and  at  no  distant  period  our 
foreign  trade  will  be  nearly  annihilated.  Such  is  now  the  cafe  between  France 
and  England  whose  exchanges  are  less  in  amount  than  those  of  this  country 
and  <  luba.  We  should  perhaps  have  a  trade  left  in  spices,  teas,  and  a  few  other 
articles,  which  cannot  be  produced  in  our  latitudes  ;  but  four-fifths  of  all  we  are 
at  present  allowed  to  import,  would  be  excluded. 


29 

the  exclusion  of  foreign  articles — to  be  independent  of  foreign 
nations.  The  employment  of  domestic  industry  and  capital  is  the 
theme  constantly  harped  upon.  That  an  article  can  be  obtained 
from  abroad,  at  half  the  price  we  pay  for  it  at  home,  is  not  of 
the  least  weight.  Indeed,  on  this  principle,  the  more  an  article 
costs  at  home,  the  greater  the  benefit  to  the  country  in  producing 
it,  since  the  greater  is  the  employment  thereby  given  to  domestic 
capital  and  industry. 

This  is  the  tendency,  and  this  will  be  the  effect  of  the  protecting 
system,  if  not  arrested  in  its  progress.  On  the  leading  articles  of 
consumption,  such  as  wool  and  woollens,  cottons,  iron,  glass,  sugar, 
spirits,  he,  the  duties  now  range  from  27£  to  250 per  cent.;  but  these 
rates  are  not  high  enough  entirely  to  exclude  the  foreign  articles, 
and  are  constantly  complained  of  as  insufficient  to  carry  into  full  ef- 
fect the  "  American  System." 

That  entire  prohibition  is  the  real  object  of  the  present  Tariff  par- 
ty, may  be  gathered  from  the  declarations  of  those  most  relied  on  to 
expound  its  principles,  and  to  defend  it  from  the  assaults  of  its  op- 
ponents. Mr.  Clayy  in  an  elaborate  speech  in  the  Apollonian  Gar- 
dens at  Cincinnati,  Aug.  1830,  complained  of  the  encroachments 
of  the  enemies  of  the  "  American  System  "  upon  its  principles,  in 
the  reduction  of  the  duty  on  salt  and  molasses,  and  the  restoration 
of  the  drawback  on  distilled  spirits.  He  considered  these  changes 
as  depriving  the  West  of  some  portion  of  its  share  of  the  bounties 
accruing  from  the  Tariff  acts,  and  at  the  same  time,  as  tending  to 
subvert  the  whole  protecting  policy.  He  says,  "  The  stratagem 
which  has  been  adopted  by  the  foes  of  the  system  to  destroy  it,  re- 
quires the  exercise  of  constant  vigilance  and  firmness  to  prevent  the 
accomplishment  of  the  object.  They  have  resolved  to  divide  and 
conquer.  The  friends  of  the  system  should  assume  the  revolution- 
ary motto  of  our  ancestors,  '  United  we  stand,  divided  we  fall.' 
They  should  allow  no  alteration  in  any  part  of  the  system  as  it  now 
exists,  ivhich  did  not  aim  at  rendering  more  efficacious  the  system 
of  protection  on  ivhich  the  whole  is  founded." — "The  American 
system  of  protection  should  be  regarded,  as  it  is,  an  entire  and  com- 
prehensive system,  made  up  of  various  items,  aiming  at  the  pros- 
perity of  the  whole  Union,  by  protecting  the  interest  of  each." 

This  is  an  explicit  and  open  declaration  of  the  principal  objects 
and  effect  of  the  "  American  System,"  characteristic  of  the  frank 
and  manly  temper  of  the  distinguished  citizen  who  made  it.  If  the 
existing  duties  are  not  reduced,  by  a  return  to  a  free  trade  and 
revenue  system,  then  they  must  necessarily  be  extended  to  all  arti- 
cles which  can  be  produced  in  this  country,  even  should  they,  as 
in  the  case  of  sugar,  iron  and  woollens,  cost  the  consumers  50  to 
150^?er  cent,  more  than  similar  articles  can  he  had  for  elsewhere. 
Protection  cannot  be  refused  but  in  jtoss  violation  of  precedent  and 


30 

of  their  own  principles.  Besides,  it  will  be  both  politic  and  just ;  for, 
if  it  be  wise  to  pay  a  double  price  for  half  of  the  articles  of  con- 
sumption, it  certainly  would  be  wiser  to  extend  the  system  to  the 
whole  of  them.  In  other  words,  if  Congress  should  still  continue 
to  legislate  on  the  principle  that  clear  goods  are  better  than  cheap 
ones,  that  scarcity  is  better  than  abundance,  and  poverty  better  than 
wealth,  the  carrying  of  the  system  to  entire  prohibition  would  best 
effect  their  object.*  But  it  is  sometimes  denied,  at  least  by  unre- 
flecting men,  who  are  little  aware  of  the  real  objects  of  the  party 
we  are  resisting,  that  protection  means  prohibition.  To  remove  this 
objection,  and  to  satisfy  the  most  credulous  believers  in  the  moder- 
ation and  disinterestedness  of  the  restrictionists,  we  will  again  re- 
sort to  the  explanations  of  men,  who  should,  and  who  do  under- 
stand what  those  who  have  the  greatest  pecuniary  and  political  in- 
terest in  the  question  mean  by  the  term  protection. 

The  Pennsylvania  Woollen  Convention,  in  an  address  drawn  up 
by  Mr.  C.  I.  Ingersoll,  state  the  object  of  the  "  American  System"  to 
be,  "  to  countervail  foreign  manufactures  in  favor  of  all  such  as  can 
be  advantageously  made  at  home  ;  we  except  none."  What  is  meant 
by  the  term  advantageously,  is  plainly  understood  by  the  subsequent 
recommendation  by  the  authors  and  supporters  of  the  address,  of  rates 
of  duty  on  cottons,  woollens,  &lc,  amounting  to  27£  a  250  per  cent. 

Mr.  E.  Everett  says,  "The  tariff*  of  1824  was  framed  to  enable 
each  article  as  manufactured  at  home  to  sustain  a  competition  with 
the  same  article  imported  ;  " — and  Mr.  Lawrence,  a  highly  re- 
spectable and  intelligent  manufacturer,  whose  opinions  bear  as  much 
weight  as  those  of  any  individual  of  the  party,  says,  "  We  want  pro- 
tection ;  it  matters  not  whether  it  is  50  or  150  per  cent,  so  long 
as  it  is  protection."  In  accordance  with  these  views,  the  act  of 
1828  was  passed,  granting  25  to  250  per  cent.  But  even  this  is 
deemed  insufficient  and  there  has  been  a  constant  clamor  for  more 
-protection,  on  some  of  the  articles  noiv  subjected  to  the  highest  duties, 
by  striking  out  the  low  minimums,  on  woollens  for  instance,  and  thus 
doubling  the  existing  high   rates. 

Again,  we  arc  told  by  Mr.  Senator  Robbins,  of  Rhode  Island,  at 
a  meeting  in  October,  lor  the  choice  of  delegates  to  the  New  York 
Tariff  Convention,  that  "  the  whole  industry  of  the  country  is  to  be 
protected,  wherever  or  however  it  is  employed,  against  foreign 
competition"  Mr.  Pearce,  a  representative  in  Congress  from  Rhode 
Island,  at  a  public  dinner  in  1827,  said, — "  The  time  will  soon  arrive 
when  all  the  citizens  of  this  country  will  be  convinced  that  they  can 

#  The  millennium  of  the  "  American  System''  would  then  be  realized,  and  wo 
might  contentedly  si!  down  under  our  own  vines  and  our  own  tig  trees,  without 
hankering  after  the  unattainable  wines  and  figs  of  foreign  countries,  and  with 
th«  additional  satisfaction  that  an  abundance  of  domestic  capital  and  labor  had 
been  exponded  in  their  production. 


31 

manufacture  their  articles  for  themselves,  and  our  government  will 
see  the  necessity  of  making  protection,  prohibition."  There  is  no 
quarter  of  the  country,  where  the  term  protection  is  better  under- 
stood than  in  Rhode  Island. 

In  an  address  before  the  board  of  agriculture  in  New  York,  Mr. 
George  Tibbets,  a  member  of  the  Harrisburg  and  of  the  New  York 
Convention,  says,  "  I  should  consider  it  a  great  misfortune  if  Eng- 
land should  withdraw  this  monitory  advice, and  again  admit  our  bread- 
stuff, provisions  and  raw  materials.  It  would  have  a  tendency  to 
prevent  us,  for  a  long  time,  from  rising  to  that  solid  and  permanent 
elevation  to  which,  by  her  policy,  we  are  now  fast  approaching,  and 
to  which  we  may  very  soon  attain  by  proper  management.  We 
want,  in  addition  to  the  obstructions  which  England  throws  in  the 
way  of  our  importations,  such  further  obstructions  raised  by  our  gov- 
ernment, as  shall  create  the  fullest  confidence  in  manufacturing  un- 
dertakings in  this  country."  These  are  the  opinions  of  one  of  the 
most  respectable,  wealthy  and  influential  leaders  of  the  restrictive 
party  ;  and  doubtless  represent  the  views  of  the  capitalists  who  are, 
in  truth,  the  most  efficient  supporters  of  the  "  American  System." 

Again — in  the  New  York  Tariff  Convention,  Mr.  J.  B.  Brown, 
one  of  the  most  zealous  supporters  of  the  system,  said,  that  he  thought 
"  the  country  would  be  a  gainer  by  prohibition." 

The  point  we  are  discussing  is  of  great  importance.  A  large  por- 
tion of  those  who  acquiesce  in  the  system,  if  they  do  not  support  it, 
do  not  seem  to  be  aware  of  the  real  design  of  its  authors  and  influ- 
ential supporters.  That  object  is  to  exclude,  by  prohibitory  duties, 
every  thing  that  can  be  made  or  produced  at  home,  which  in  truth 
comprises  nearly  every  thing  we  consume.  We  will,  therefore, 
produce  still  further  evidence,  and  from  the  highest  sources,  of  what 
is  intended  by  the  term  protection.  Mr.  Clay,  in  describing  the 
origin  and  progress  of  the  system,  says, — "  It  was  properly  called 
the  American  System.  The  means  of  introducing,  perfecting  and 
securing  it,  were  to  tax  the  articles  of  foreign  production  which  ri- 
val and  compete  with  our  own." 

Mr.  Webster,  in  his  speech  in  apology  for  the  Tariff  of  1828  says, — 
"  The  meaning  of  our  law  was  doubtless  to  give  the  American  man- 
ufacturer an  advantage  over  his  English  competitors.  Protection 
must  mean  this,  or  it  means  nothing.  The  English  manufacturer 
having  certain  advantages  on  his  side,  such  as  the  lower  price  of  la- 
bor, and  the  lower  interest  of  money,  the  object  of  our  law  was,  to 
counteract  these  advantages  by  creating  others  in  behalf  of  the 
American  manufacturer." 

The  meaning  attached  to  the  term  protection,  by  those  for  whose 
pecuniary  and  political  purposes  the  protecting  system  is  maintained, 
we  think  can   now  admit  of  no  dispute.     The  right  of  protection 


32 

means  the  right  of  a  majority  in  Congress  to  impose  such  duties  as 
will  enable  the  producer  of  any  article,  which  can  be  produced  in 
this  country,  to  undersell  the  cheaper  foreign  article.  This  being 
the  case,  a  duty,  to  be  effective,  must  be  prohibitory.  If  it  fall 
short  of  this,  the  foreign  article  will  drive  the  domestic  produce  from 
the  market.  It  matters  not  how  high  the  duty  may  be,  whether,  as 
Mr.  Lawrence  says,  50  or  150 per  cent.; — it  must  rise  to  the  point 
of  prohibition  to  be  protective.  That  such  is  the  practical  applica- 
tion of  the  term,  is  evident  from  the  act  of  1828,  which  imposed  du- 
ties actually  prohibitory  on  many  of  the  necessaries  of  life. 

Protection,  then,  means  prohibition  ;  and  if  Congress  pass  a  pro- 
tecting law,  it  does  in  fact  assume  the  right  of  prohibiting  the  impor- 
tation of  such  articles  as  are  intended  to  be  protected  ; — and  it  oi 
necessity  follows,  that,  if  they  have  the  right  of  prohibiting  some  ar- 
ticles for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  price  of  domestic  articles  of  the 
same  kind,  they  have  the  right  of  prohibiting  all  articles  which  can 
possibly  be  made  at  home.  The  question  before  us,  then,  is,  wheth- 
er laws  prohibiting  the  principal  branches  of  our  foreign  trade,  and 
of  necessity  followed  by  an  equal  diminution  of  our  exports,  can  be 
in  accordance  with  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  Constitution  ? 

Is  not  a  prohibition  to  trade  a  violation  of  one  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  society — the  right  of  acquiring  property  ?  Can  any 
legislative  body  deprive  the  citizens  of  a  free  country  of  one  of 
those  natural  and  unalienable  rights,  which  are  above  all  Kings, 
Congresses,  and  Constitutions?  This  is  the  great  question  now  in 
dispute  ;  and  let  every  man  who  loves  his  country,  ponder  well  on 
the  importance  of  answering  it  honestly  ;  for,  on  its  issue,  hang  the 
future  harmony,  peace,  welfare  and  integrity  of  the  Union. 


No.  6. 


AN    INQUIRY 


INTO    THE    CAUSES    OF    THE 


FALL    OF    PRICES. 


We  have  endeavored,  in  the  foregoing  discussion,  to  show  by- 
facts  which  are  within  the  reach  of  every  one,  the  oppressiveness 
of  the  existing  system  with  regard  to  one  of  its  effects  ;  namely,  pe- 
cuniary taxation.  In  doing  this,  we  have  confined  ourselves  to  a 
few  of  the  leading  articles  of  consumption.  It  would  occupy  too 
much  time  and  space  to  analyze  the  whole  list  of  dutied  articles,  and 
estimate  the  burthen  which  each  tax  imposes  upon  the  nation.  Hav- 
ing done  this  with  regard  to  some  of  the  most  prominent,  such  as 
woollens  and  cottons,  sugar  and  iron,  the  reader  can  apply  the  same 
rules  to  other  high  dutied  articles  of  import,  such  as  linens  of  va- 
rious sorts,  salt,  molasses,  crockery  ware,  glass  ware,  window  glass, 
hard  ware,  tin  plates,  slate,  coal,  wool,  cordage,  indigo,  paper,  books 
and  stationary,  spirits,  oil,  wines,  fruits,  and  many  others,  comprising 
most  of  the  necessaries,  comforts,  and  conveniences  of  life. 

From  the  indirect  mode  in  which  these  duties  operate  on  con- 
sumers, a  vast  majority  are  insensible  to  the  large  sums  which 
are  monthly,  daily  and  hourly  taken  from  them  in  the  increas- 
ed prices  which  they  pay  for  their  clothing,  food,  furniture,  and  work- 
ing utensils  of  every  sort.  Nothing,  however,  can  be  more  certain 
than  that  the  consumers  of  the  articles  enumerated,  and  of  many 
others,  not  enumerated,  pay  just  so  much  additional  price  for  them, 
as  the  amount  of  duties  actually  levied  upon  them  at  the  Custom 
House. 

And  here  we  will  notice  a  distinction  between  duties  for  revenue 
and  those  for  protection.  When  goods  are  actually  imported,  the 
amount  of  duties  paid  on  them  goes  into  the  public  chest,  and  is  ex- 
pended for  the  public  benefit.  No  complaint  can  be  made  of  such 
duties,  so  long  as  the  revenue  is  wanted,  and   the  duties  are  not  so 


2 

high  as  to  diminish  the  amount  of  revenue  which  might  be  collected. 
This  is  a  revenue  duty.  But  duties  may  be  so  high  as  to  prevent 
importation  altogether,  and  to  compel  the  consumers  to  use  the  do- 
mestic article,  which,  though  cheaper  than  the  foreign  one  with  the 
addition  of  the  prohibitory  duty,  is  much  dearer  than  the  foreign  one 
would  be  with  a  lower  duty.  This  puts  nothing  into  the  public  chest, 
is  paid  for  the  sole  benefit  of  the  home  producers  of  the  prohibited 
articles,  and  is  therefore  not  a  tax  for  revenue,  but  a  tax  for  pro- 
tection. 

We  hope  the  reader  will  keep  the  distinction  between  duties  for 
revenue  and  duties  for  protection  constantly  in  view;  and  the  more 
so,  because  our  opponents  continually  argue  the  question,  as  il  we 
objected  to  laws  designed  for  the  purpose  of  raising  revenue; — and 
it  is  upon  this  ground,  and  that  of  the  right  of  regulating  trade, 
(which  we  are  charged  also  with  denying,  but  which  we  never  have 
denied)  that  the  argument  upon  the  constitutionality  of  the  Tariff, 
in  the  Address  of  the  New  York  Convention,  is  mainly  founded. 

The  national  party  do  not  deny  the  right  of  Congress  to  pass  laws 
to  raise  revenue  and  to  regulate  trade  ;  but  they  do  deny,  that  laws 
passed  with  the  sole  and  avowed  object  of  annihilating  both  trade 
and  revenue,  can  find  a  justification  in  clauses  of  the  constitution 
giving  to  Congress  the  right  of  regulating  trade  and  raising  revenue. 
That  is  to  say,  they  deny  that  certain  specific  powers,  granted  solely 
for  the  attainment  of  specified  ends ;  viz.  to  raise  revenue  and  to 
regulate  trade,  can  fairly  be  construed  into  a  right  to  exercise  those 
powers  with  the  avowed  object  of  subverting  the  very  purposes,  for 
the  attainment  of  which  those  powers  were  granted. 

According  to  the  defence  in  the  New  York  Address  (which  is 
but  a  repetition  of  what  Mr.  Madison  had  before  said,)  the  question 
turns  upon  the  construction  of  the  phrases,  "  to  regulate  trade,"  and 
"  to  raise  revenue  ;"  and  we  are  told,  in  the  same  Address,  that  "  the 
meaning  of  these  words,  is  to  be  ascertained  by  reference  to  the 
common  use  and  import  of  language." 

What,  then,  is  the  meaning  of  the  phrase,  "to  regulate  com- 
merce?" To  regulate  is  a  word  of  such  clear  and  familiar  import, 
that  the  question  seems  almost  impertinent.  But  when  some  of  the 
greatest  men  in  the  country  have  undertaken  to  justify  oppressive, 
and,  as  many  think,  unconstitutional  laws,  by  a  gross  perversion  of 
language  from  its  common  and  true  import,  it  becomes  important  to 
offer  such  an  explanation  of  this  term,  as  may  be  intelligible  to  the 
dullest  mind.  And  here  again,  from  deference  to  our  opponents, 
we  shall  select  an  authority  which  will  have  with  them  more  weight 
than  all  the  critics  and  grammarians  in  the  universe.  "  To  regulate 
ro  nmerce,"  says  Mr.  Webster,  in  his  argument  against  the  consti- 
tutionality of  the  embargo  act,  "  to  regulate  commerce  is  an  ex- 
pression not  difficult  to  be  understood.     To  regulate  is  to  direct,  to 


adjust,  to  improve.  The  laws  respecting  duties,  drawbacks,  ports 
of  entry,  the  registry,  the  sale  and  survey  of  vessels,  are  all  so  many 
laws  regulating  commerce.  To  regulate,  one  would  think,  could 
never  mean  to  destroy.  When  we  send  our  watches  to  be  regulated, 
our  intention  is  not  that  their  motion  he  altogether  stopped,  hut  that 
it  be  corrected  ;  we  do  not  request  the  watchmaker  to  prevent  them 
from  going  at  all,  hut  to  cause  them  to  go  better.  If  one  were  au- 
thorized to  regulate  the  affairs  of  government,  he  would  not  think  of 
arresting  its  course  altogether — of  abolishing  all  office — abrogating 
all  law — this  would  be  destroying;  but  he  might  perhaps  alter  and 
correct,  and  this  would  be  regulating." 

Jt  would  appear  then,  that  in  1807,  according  to  the  views  of 
one  of  the  clearest  and  strongest  minds  in  the  nation,  "  to  regulate 
is  to  direct,  to  adjust,  to  improve,"  and  "  could  never  mean  to  de- 
stroy ;  "  and  we  are  not  aware  of  any  such  changes  in  our  language, 
whatever  there  may  have  been  in  the  opinions  and  actions  of  some 
of  its  ingenious  expounders,  as  to  vary  the  meaning  which  was 
then  attached  to  that  expression. 

So  it  is  with  the  phrase,  "  to  raise  revenue  ;  "  whatever  laws  are 
enacted  under  the  powers  conferred  by  these  clauses  in  the  constitu- 
tion must,  in  order  to  find  a  justification  in  these  clauses,  be  passed 
with  a  bona  fide  intention  of — what?  destroying  the  sources  of 
trade  and  revenue  ?  No ; — but  of  extending  trade  and  in- 
creasing revenue.  These,  and  these  only,  are  the  legitimate  pur- 
poses for  which  these  powers  were  granted  ;  and  it  is  beyond  the 
power  of  argument  or  sophistry  to  bring  any  impartial  and  rational 
mind  to  any  other  conclusion. 

To  return  to  the  subject,  from  which  we  have  wandered.  We 
maintain,  that  every  duty  imposed  on  a  foreign  article,  so  far  as 
that  duty  is  levied  with  the  intention  of  keeping  that  article  out  of 
the  market,  is  a  tax  upon  the  consumer,  by  compelling  him  to  pay 
so  much  additional  price  for  the  domestic  article, thus  forced  upon  him 
by  legislative  enactments;  which  additional  price  is  just  so  much  loss  to 
the  nation.  For  instance,  if  domestic  sugar  costs  6  cents,  and  foreign 
sugar  could  he  imported  at  Scents,  provided  the  present  duty  of  3  cents 
were  repealed  ;  then,  so  long  as  that  duty  is  continued,  on  each  pur- 
chase of  sugar  to  the  amount  of  100  dollars,  half  of  that  sum  is  a  tax 
on  the  consumer,  which  would  be  saved  but  for  the  existence  of 
the  duty.  Were  it  otherwise,  the  sugar  duty  would  be  of  no  benefit 
to  the  planters  of  Louisiana,  and  they  would  no  longer  resist  its  re- 
duction or  repeal.  So,  also,  with  regard  to  salt,  cottons,  woollens, 
iron,  molasses,  glass,  wool,  indigo,  oil,  books,  spirits,  wines,  &.c.  ; 
those  duties  on  them  which  are  low  enough  to  admit  certain  portions, 
are  taxes  for  revenue  ;  and  those  which  are  so  high  as  to  exclude 
certain  other  portions,  operate  also  as  taxes,  up  to  the  point  of  ex- 
clusion of  the  foreign  articles.     Both  are  taxes  upon  the  nation  as 


consumers.  This  is  a  doctrine  which  is  so  obviously  true,  that  it 
seems  incredible  that  any  rational  mind  should  deny  it ;  but  as  it  is 
denied  by  essayists,  orators  and  legislators  on  the  side  of  our  oppo- 
nents, we  will  cite  an  authority  in  its  favor,  meriting,  and  no  doubt 
possessing,  the  highest  confidence. 

The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  North  American  Review, 
often  before  quoted,  and  attributed  to  the  then  editor  of  that  work, 
Mr.  E.  Everett: — "Prohibiting  the  introduction  of  foreign  manufac- 
tures, or  imposing  taxes  upon  them,  can  benefit  the  manufacturers, 
onlv  so  far  as  it  tends  to  increase  the  price  in  our  own  market  of 
the  articles  whose  importation  is  thus  restrained,  and  is,  therefore, 
as  this  difference  of  price  is  paid  by  the  consumer,  a  tax  on  the 
community,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  encourage  the  production  of 
these  articles  at  home ;  whereas,  it  does  not  need  encouragement, 
if  it  is  the  most  lucrative  employment, — and  ought  not  to  have  it, 
if  it  is  not."  * 

*  The  following  extract  from  a  speech  of  Mr.  H.  G.  Otis,  in  1820,  when  oppos- 
ing any  addition  to  the  comparatively  moderate  duties,  then  imposed  on  wool- 
lens, iron,  &c.  supports  the  view  taken  by  Mr.  Everett  of  the  effect  of  prohibi- 
tory duties.  The  bill  was  a  manifesto  of  the  disposition  of  a  committee,  to  listen 
to  the  claim  of  the  manufactures  for  a  bounty  of  fit e  millions  of  dollars,  in  the 
outset.  Let  other  classes  uf  the  community,  the  farmer,  the  merchant,  the  me- 
chanic, be  heard  on  the  question,  before  the  irrevocable  sanction  is  given  to  the 
system."  With  regard  to  the  farmers,  merchants  and  mechanics,  whose  inter- 
est Mr.  Otis  thin  advocated  against  the  system  of  taxes,  levied  upon  them  for 
the  benefit  of  the  manufacturers, not  the  manufacturers  generally,  but  the  wealthy 
ones,  whose  capitals  would  enable  them  to  participate  in  the  governmental 
bounties,  it  would  have  been  fortunate  for  the  country  had  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  farmers,  merchants  and  mechanics  been  regarded  ;  but  these  class- 
es have  had  no  more  influence  in  Congress  since  1620,  than  the  same  classes 
formerly  enjoyed  in  England  and  France,  when  the  legislation  of  those  coun- 
tries was  wholly  controlled  by  a  few  thousand  men  of  wealth  and  rank,  who 
consulted  no  other  interests  but  their  own,  in  administering  the  affairs  of  those 
nations.  To  these  two  authorities,  as  to  the.  effect  of  prohibitory  duties,  we  add 
that  of  Mr.  Webster,  who  says,  in  speaking  against  a  bill  for  an  increase  of  duty  on 
iron,  &c, — "  The  present  duty  on  the  imported  article,  is  15  dollars  per  ton, 
and  as  this  duly  cuuscs  of  course  an  equivalent  augmentation  of  the  price  of  the  home 
manufacture,  the  whole  increase  of  price  is  equal  to  750,000  dollars  annually. 
This  sum  we  pay  on  a  ruw  material,  and  on  an  absolute  neeessari/  of  life.  The 
Bill  proposes  to  raise  the  duly  from  15  to  2'2\  dollars  per  ton,  which  would  be 
equal  to  1,125,000  dollars,  on  the  whole  annual  consumption.  So  that,  suppose 
the  point  of  prohibition  which  is  aimed  at  by  some  gentlemen  to  be  attained, 
the  consumers  of  the  article  would  pay  this  last  mentioned  sum  every  year  to  the 
producers  of  it,  over  and  above  the  price  at  which  they  could  supply  themselves 
with  the  same  article  from  other  sources.  There  would  be  no  mitigation  of  this 
burthen,  except  from  the  prospect,  whatever  that  might  be.  that  iron  would  fall 
in  value  by  domestic  competition, after  the  importation  should  be  prohibited.  It 
will  be  easy,  I  think,  to  show  that  it  cannot  fall;  and  supposing  for  the  present 
that  it  shall  not,  the  result  will  be,  that  we  shall  pay  annually  a  sum  of  1,125.000 
dollars,  constantly  augmented,  too.  by  increased  consumption  of  the  article,  to 
suppoit  a  business  thai  loill  not  support  itself.  It  is  of  no  consequence  to  the  argu- 
vanl,  that  th/s  sum  is  expended  at  home;  so  it  woiiltl'be  if  a-r  hired  the  people  to 
support  any  other  useless  and  expensive  establishment,  "to  build  another  capital 
for  example,  or  incur  an  unnecessary  expense  of  any  sort."— These  are  sound 
principles.     They  may  bo  denied,   renounced,  and  even  assailed,  by  those  who 


But  we  are  told,  in  spite  of  the  demonstrative  evidence  afforded 
by  the  Custom  House  reports,  and  the  other  facts  which  we  have 
stated,  that  the  notion  that  taxation  on  an  article  increases  the  price 
of  it,  is  "  a  mere  theory  of  free  trade,  sound  in  itself,  but  leading  to 
incorrect  results;"  facts  (they  say)  are  against  us;  duties  have 
been,  from  time  to  time,  increased,  and  the  prices  have  been  contin- 
ually falling  in  consequence  of  such  augmentation  of  duty. 

To  affirm  that  taxing  an  article  lessens  the  cost  of  it,  is,  to  say 
the  least,  a  puzzling  paradox  to  those  who  understand  terms  in  their 
common  acceptation  ;  those  however  who  are  familiar  with  the  writ- 
ings of  the  most  prominent  advocates  of  the  "American  System," 
have  met  with  others  not  less  puzzling  in  the  new  definitions  affixed 
by  those  writers  to  various  terms  in  common  use  ; — to  regulate  trade, 
according  to  them,  is  to  destroy  trade  ;  to  raise  revenue,  is  to  extin- 
guish the  sources  of  revenue  ;  national  independence  is  promoted 
by  diminishing  national  wealth;  patriotism,  by  alienating  one  portion 
of  the  Union  from  the  other;  labor  is  augmented,  by  sinking  the  cap- 
ital upon  which  its  employment  depends  ;  domestic  industry,  by  tax- 
ing the  industrious  classes  for  the  benefit  of  the  wealthy  ;  and  finally, 
the  theory  of  free  trade  is  a  correct  theory,  but  leads  to  incorrect  re- 
sults. These,  we  suppose,  will  be  admitted  as  some  of  the  funda- 
mental doctrines  of  the  "  American  System." 

The  assertion,  that  the  high  duties  imposed  in  1816,  partly  to  af- 
ford a  temporary  protection  to  manufactures,  which  had  grown  up 
under  wars  and  commercial  restrictions,  but  principally  for  the  pur- 
pose of  paying  the  heavy  debt  which  then  existed  ; — which  duties 
have  since  been  doubled,  and  in  some  instances  quadrupled,  because 
of  their  insufficiency  to  keep  down  the  competition  of  foreign  goods; 
— the  assertion,  we  say,  that  the  imposition  of  these  duties  has  been 
the  cause  of  a  decline  in  the  prices  of  those  domestic  productions 
which  have  required  this  protection  against  similar  foreign  produc- 
tions, implies  great  ignorance  or  unfairness  on  the  part  of  those 
who  make  it.  We  will  endeavor  to  adduce  satisfactory  evidence 
to  disprove  that  assertion. 

Mr.  Clay,  in  his  speech  at  Cincinnati,  makes  the  following  remark  : 
"  That  system  (the  American  System)  has  had  wonderful  success; 
it  has  diminished  the  prices  of  articles  of  consumption,  and  has  placed 
them  within  the  reach  of  a  far  greater  number  of  our  people  than 
could  have  found  means  to  consume  them,  if  they  had  been  manu- 
factured abroad  instead  of  at  home." 

The  Address  of  the  Pennsylvania.  Society,  issued  for  the  purpose 

once  maintained  them;  but  they  cannot  he  subverted.  Talents  and  ingenuity  can 
do  much.  They  can,  when  misapplied,  as  they  too  often  are,  mislead  the  selfish 
aryj  the  ignorant,  but  they  cannot  unsettle  or  overturn  those  original  and  self- 
•  vident  principles,  which  lie  at  the  foundation  of  truth  and  justice. 


of  assembling  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  says,  "It  is  assumed  that 
protecting  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  manufactures  greatly 
enhance  the  prices,  and  of  course,  impose  an  oppressive  tax  on  the 
consumer.  Nothing  can  be  more  foreign  from  the  fact."  This  doc- 
ument was  at  the  time  attributed  to  Mr.  C.  I.  Ingersoll,  one  of  the 
most  intelligent  advocates  of  the  "  American  System." 

In  the  Resolutions  passed  at  the  meeting  in  Philadelphia  for  the 
choice  of  delegates,  we  find  the  following  specific  declaration.  "  In 
fine,  the  positive  evidence  is  all  around  us,  that  every  article  that 
has  received  full  protection  has,  without  exception,  instead  of  be- 
coming dearer  and  worse,  become  cheaper  and  belter  since  the  era 
of  protection,  and  none  pays  as  much  as  heretofore  for  any  of  the 
productions  of  handicraft,  but  tbose  who  insist  on  paying  more  in 
order  to  gratify  their  caprice  or  their  aversion  ;  houses,  ships,  cloth- 
ing, a  hat,  a  coat,  a  shirt,  shoes,  machinery,  carriages,  furniture, 
manufactures  of  wood,  iron,  cotton,  wool,  leather,  peltry,  glass;  in 
short,  nearly  all  the  necessaries  and  luxuries  of  existence,  are  to  be 
found  in  our  work  shops  of  better  materials  and  workmanship  than 
can  be  brought  from  abroad." 

The  New  York  Tariff  Convention  repeat  the  same  contradictory 
proposition,  in  the  following  terms.  "  Mistaken  opinions  in  regard 
to  the  effect  of  the  Tariff  upon  the  prices  of  commodities  used  in 
the  United  States,  and  upon  which  the  protective  system  has  been 
brought  to  bear,  have  furnished  some  popular  objections  against  the 
wisdom  of  the  policy.  It  has  been  said  that  the  effect  of  a  duty  is 
necessarily  to  increase  the  price  of  an  article  upon  which  it  is  laid  to 
the  full  amount  of  the  tax.  It  would  be  easy  to  show  by  a  minute 
survey  of  the  whole  field  of  American  industry,  that,  so  far  from 
this  being  true,  the  invariable  operation  of  the  Tariff  has  been  to 
lower  the  price  to  the  consumers  of  every  article  that  has  been 
successfully  manufactured  under  the  protection.  Such  a  survey 
would  require  more  detail  than  the  purpose  of  this  address  allows  ; 
but  we  propose  to  examine  the  operation  of  the  Tariff  upon  some 
of  our  most  important  articles." 

The  last  authority  we  shall  produce  is  Mr.  Niles,  who  has  sum- 
med up  in  a  few  words  the  substance  of  what  has  been  put  in  a 
more  extended  form  by  others  ;  "  All  articles,"  says  this  popular 
and  influential  writer,  "  all  articles  protected  are  cheaper  because 
of  that  protection." 

That  the  prices  of  most  articles  of  consumption  upon  which  the 
Protecting  System  has  been  brought  to  bear,  are  lower  than  they 
were  before  the  first  protecting  act  was  passed,  no  one  can  deny. 
It  is  not  as  to  the  fact  of  a  fall  of  prices  that  the  restrictionists  and 
their  opponents  differ,  but  as  to  the  causes  which  have  produced 


7 

this  fall.  Our  opponents  assert,  in  unqualified  terms,  that  the  de- 
cline in  the  prices  of  the  commodities  referred  to,  which  are  those 
on  which  the  highest  duties  have  been  imposed,  is  to  he  attributed 
to  the  various  acts  of  Congress,  by  which  these  duties  were  so  raised  ; 
or,  in  the  words  of  the  Address,  "  the  invariable  operation  of  the 
Tariff  has  been  to  lower  the  price  to  the  consumer  of  every  article 
that  has  been  successfully  manufactured  under  the  protection." 

At  first  view,  there  seems  to  be  some  qualification  in  the  terms, 
"successfully  manufactured  ;"  but  in  the  first  place,  whatever  goods 
are  produced  have  the  same  tendency  to  bring  down  prices,  as  long 
as  they  are  produced,  whether  profitable  or  unprofitable  to  the  pro- 
ducers;  and  secondly,  all  the  protected  branches  of  industry  have 
been  successfully  pursued,  where  the  undertakers  have  been  possess- 
ed of  the  proper  degree  of  economy,  skill,  and  other  requisites  for 
success. 

It  is  true  that  prices  of  most  of  the  high  dutied  articles  have  fall- 
en, and  equally  so,  that  this  fall  has  followed  the  various  Tariff  acts, 
augmenting  the  rates  of  duty ;  and  it  is  on  this  ground  that  the 
theory  of  free  trade,  which  asserts  that  taxation  on  an  article  in- 
creases the  price  of  it,  is  condemned  as  unsound,  because,  as  is 
maintained  in  this  case,  the  results  do  not  correspond  with  the  theory. 
Now,  unlike  our  opponents,  we  say  that  a  theory  which  is  contra- 
dicted by  its  practical  results  is  an  unsound  theory  ;  but  we  deny, 
altogether,  that  such  is  the  case  in  this  instance  :  we  say  that  prices 
have  fallen,  in  spite  of  these  duties,  and  we  have  seen  no  attempt 
whatever  to  show  any  connexion  between  these  two  insulated  facts, 
viz.  an  increase  of  duties,  and  a  fall  of  prices.  Can  any  thing  be 
more  inconclusive  than  this  mode  of  reasoning;  that  because  one 
event  has  succeeded  another,  the  former,  though  without  the  least 
evidence  of  connexion,  must  necessarily  be  the  cause  of  the  latter  ; 
and  is  it  not,  at  least,  a  sign  of  the  weakness  of  a  cause,  when  a 
committee,  selected  from  an  intelligent  assembly  of  500  persons, 
are  compelled  to  resort  to  such  an  abuse  of  the  understandings  of 
those  to  whom  the}'  address  themselves? 

The  duties  on  woollens,  cottons,  iron,  he,  were  increased  by  the 
Tariff  acts  of  181G,  1818,  1824,  and  1828;  therefore  the  decline 
since  experienced  in  the  prices  of  these  articles  has  been  caused 
by  these  acts.  This  is  the  way  in  which  the  beneficial  effects  of 
the  "  American  System  "  are.  proved  by  those  who  are  perpetually 
sneering  at  the  advocates  of  free  trade  as  visionary  enthusiasts,  men 
whose  theories,  though  correct,  seldom  lead  to  good  results. 

Suppose  that,  in  pursuance  of  this  mode  of  reasoning,  we  should 
endeavour  to  account  for  the  decline  in  price  of  an  article,  which 
has  not  been  affected  by  the  protecting  duties.  Bonaparte  was 
banished  to  St.  Helena  in  IS1G;  pepper,  nutmegs,  and  cloves, 
have,  since  that  period,  fallen  in  price  50  per  cent. ;  consequently, 

NO.  VI.  2 


8 

the  banishment  of  Bonaparte  lowered  the  value  of  spices.  There 
are  articles,  on  the  other  hand,  which  have  risen  of  late  in  value, 
and  by  the  same  conclusive  mode  of  reasoning,  we  may  arrive  at 
similar  logical  conclusions.  Coffee  has  advanced  50  per  cent,  since 
July,  1830;  Charles  X.  was  expelled  from  France  at  that  period  ; 
consequently,  the  expulsion  of  that  monarch  from  his  kingdom  has 
advanced  the  price  of  coffee. 

A  recurrence  to  facts  without  regard  to  their  mutual  relation, 
without  even  an  attempt  to  show  why  one  was  the  consequence  of 
the  other,  cannot  be  considered  as  proving  any  thing.  Now,  there 
is  not  necessarily  any  more  connexion  between  the  fact  of  raising 
the  duties  on  the  articles  referred  to  in  the  New  York  Address,  and 
that  of  the  fall  of  their  prices,  than  there  is  between  the  historical 
events  to  which  we  have  alluded,  and  the  subsequent  fluctuations 
in  the  value  of  spice?  and  coffee.  In  one  pari  of  the  Address,  com- 
petition of  American  with  foreign  labor  is  alluded  to  as  the  operating 
cause  of  the  fall  of  prices  ;  but  so  far  is  this  from  proving  what  is 
intended,  that  it  proves  the  very  reverse;  because  it  is  evident  that 
an  admission  of  foreign  goods  into  our  market,  at  lower  duties,  would 
have  increased  home  competition  ;  and  thus  while  our  supplies  would 
have  been  undiminished,  prices  would  have  been  lower  from  that 
very  cause. 

Absurd  as  it  is,  yet  these  are  the  facts  of  which  our  opponents 
boast  so  much,  and  this  is  the  manner  in  which  they  argue  upon 
them.  It  is  by  a  similar  "  argumentum  ad  ignorantiam"  that  sys- 
tems founded  on  the  same  principles  of  injustice  as  is  the  "  Ameri- 
can System,"  have  been  maintained  in  the  old  world,  from  which 
this  was  borrowed.  Great  Britain  has  been  the  most  prosperous 
nation  in  Europe  ;  the  Restrictive  System,  till  within  a  few  years 
has  been  maintained  there,  and  the  people,  who  bear  the  burthens 
of  such  systems,  were  told  that  their  prosperity  was  the  consequence 
of  these  restrictions  ;  but  there  has  not,  for  a  long  period,  been  a 
writer  of  any  eminence,  nor  a  statesman  whose  opinions  are  worth 
quoting,  who  does  not  consider  these  restraints  upon  the  occupations 
of  men,  as  having  retarded  the  advancement  of  that  kingdom  in  civi- 
lization and  wealth.  They  have  already  abandoned  many  of  the 
worst  parts  of  the  restrictive  system,  and  it  cannot  be  doubted  that, 
at  no  distant  period,  they  will  make  a  much  nearer  approach  to  the 
free  trade  system. 

Again — Great  Britain  has  been  involved  in  wars,  which,  within  for- 
ty years  only,  must  have  cost  her,  including  her  national  debt  and 
increase  of  poor  rates  and  pensions,  at  least  10,000,000,000  dollars; 
yet,  during  that  whole  period,  she  was  the  most  prosperous  nation  in 
Europe,  and  the  opinion  is  not  uncommon  in  this  country  that  her  wars 
have  contributed  to  her  prosperity  ;  but  we  think  that  no  man,  who 
has  reflected  upon  the  inevitable  effects  of  taxation  and  extravagance 


incident  to  war,  without  referring  to  its  other  evil  consequences,  can 
for  a  moment  helieve  that  she  would  not  have  been  in  a  much  more 
prosperous  condition,  could  those  wars  have  been  avoided.  Na- 
tions advance  in  population  and  wealth,  where  there  is  industry  and 
intelligence,  in  spite  of  wars,  pestilence,  famine,  restrictions  and  bad 
legislation.  The  effect  of  these  calamitous  visitations  are  partially 
overcome  by  more  powerful  counteracting  causes,  which  are  in 
constant  and  active  operation. 

Thus  it  is  in  this  country.  We  likewise,  within  forty  years, 
have  been  afflicted  by  wars,  embargoes,  and  "American  Systems  ; " 
but  the  industry,  intelligence,  economy  and  enterprize  of  our  people, 
the  fertility  and  cheapness  of  our  lands,  the  economy  of  our  govern- 
ment, and  the  excellence  of  our  institutions  have  overcome  these  ob- 
stacles in  a  considerable  degree  ;  but  nothing  can  be  more  irrational 
than  to  attribute  our  present  state  of  prosperity  to  these  evils,  nor 
can  any  reflecting  man  doubt  that,  but  for  them,  we  should  have 
been  more  prosperous  and  happy  than  we  now  are. 

That  the  prices  of  most  of  the  articles  which  have  been  favored 
by  the  Protecting  System  have  fallen,  is  undeniably  true,  and  so  it 
is,  of  other  articles,  not  affected  by  that  system;  but,  as  our  oppo- 
nents have  not  offered  any  satisfactory  evidence,  that  this  decline  in 
price  has  been  caused  by  the  various  augmentations  in  the  rates  of 
duty,  the  presumption  is  that  they  have  none  to  offer. 

We  agree,  then,  to  their  facts,  but  deny  their  conclusions.  On 
the  contrary,  we  affirm  that  the  fall  in  prices  has  been  occasioned 
by  causes  wholly  independent  of,  and  unconnected  with  these  alter- 
ations in  our  Tariffs,  and  that,  but  for  the  existence  of  the  present 
and  former  rates  of  duty,  every  article  referred  to  in  the  New  York 
Tariff  Address,  as  among  those  the  prices  of  which  had  fallen,  would 
now  and  at  any  former  period  have  been  at  much  lower  prices  than 
those  the  consumers  have  actually  paid  and  are  now  paying  for  them. 

The  proposition  of  our  opponents  amounts  to  this,  that  the  effect 
of  every  successive  augmentation  of  duties  by  the  acts  of  1816,  1S18, 
1824,  and  1828,  has  been  injurious  to  their  interests,  inasmuch  as 
these  additional  rates  of  duty  on  the  foreign  articles  were  the  causes 
of  a  decline  in  similar  articles  made  at  home,  below  the  prices  to 
which  they  would  have  fallen,  had  no  additions  been  made  to  the  low 
rates  which  existed  prior  to  the  Protecting  System. 

The  first  Tariff  of  protection  (intended  only  for  a  temporary  pur- 
pose, however,)  was  passed  in  1816,  and  it  is  well  known  that  prices 
of  most  articles  relying  on  the  Protecting  System  began  to  fall  rapidly 
after  that  act  went  into  operation  ;  but  the  manufacturers]  so  far  from 
believing  in  the  maxim,  that  high  duties  on  foreign  articles  Jorver 
the  price  of  domestic  articles,  made  application  to  Congress,  in  1818, 
for  a  continuance  of  the  rates  on  cottons  and  woollens,  granted  by 
the  act  of  1816,  which,  otherwise,  werw,  in  three  years,  to  have 


10 

oeen  reduced  one-fifth  ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  the  iron-masters  ob- 
tained an  augmentation  of  nearly  70  per  cent,  on  the  duty  on  ham- 
mered bar-iron,  it  having  been  increased  from  $9  to  $15  per  ton. 
Does  this  look  like  a  belief  in  their  assertion,  that  an  increase  of 
duties  lowers  the  price  of  the  home-made  article? 

In  1820,  application  was  again  made  for  a  further  increase  of 
duties  on  cottons,  woollens,  iron,  he.  which,  in  1824,  resulted 
in  additional  duties  on  each  of  the  foreign  articles,  coming  m  com- 
petition with  similar  domestic  articles.  During  this  interval,  (from 
1820  to  1S24)  foreign  cottons,  woollens,  iron  and  most  other  pro- 
ductions had  fallen  from  20  to  30  per  cent. — not  from  the  competition 
of  our  manufacturers,  but  from  causes  to  which  we  shall  hereafter 
advert.  We  were  at  this  very  period  importing,  heavily,  foreign 
iron,  woollens,  cottons,  &:c.  under  duties  of  from  25  to  100  per  ccr.t. ; 
and  yet,  if  we  are  to  believe  the  assertion  in  the  Address,  these  in- 
creased rates  of  duty  paid  on  an  immense  amount  of  goods,  imported 
because  former  rates  of  duty  were  insufficient  to  protect  the  home 
producers,  did  not  operate  as  a  tax  on  the  consumers  ;  or,  to  use 
their  own  words,  "  the  invariable  operation  of  the  Tariff  has  been  to 
lower  the  price  to  the  consumer  of  every  article  that  has  been  suc- 
cessfully manufactured  under  the  protection."  In  truth,  they  affirm 
that,  whilst  the  home  producers  were  enjoying  a  protection  of  25  a 
100  per  cent,  to  keep  out  of  our  market  the  cheaper  foreign  fabrics, 
and  which  rates  were  insufficient  for  that  purpose,  the  consumers 
were  obtaining  the  protected  articles  cheaper  than  they  could  have 
obtained  the  foreign  articles,  if  no  such  duties  existed. 

It  is  true  that  even  under  the  increased  duties,  goods  were  cheap- 
er than  before  the  Tariff  of  1816  ;  not,  however,  because  of  those 
duties,  but  in  spite  of  them.  The  decline  of  prices  abroad  has  been 
generally  greater  than  the  augmentation  of  duties;  otherwise  im- 
portations of  foreign  articles  would  have  received  a  greater  check, 
and  have  been  sold  at  higher  prices.  Had  not  the  duties  been 
raised,  however,  they  would  have  sold  at  still  lower  rates. 

Again — if  the  favored  class,  for  whose  benefit  the  high  duties  were 
established,  found  by  experience  that  the  Tariff  acts  of  1816,  1818, 
and  1824  had  lowered  the  prices  of  domestic  articles  and  conse- 
quently injured  their  interests,  why  did  they  call  for  the  act  of  1828, 
which  more  than  doubled  the  duties  on  woollens,  and  greatly  in- 
creased those  on  cottons,  iron,  wool  and  some  other  articles;  and 
why  ask  for  a  continuance  of  duties,  which,  as  they  assert,  have 
heretofore  lowered  the  prices  of  all  protected  articles? 

The  mere  statement  here  given  of  the  conduct  of  the  favored 
classes  in  making  such  continual  demands  for  duties  (and  which 
have  not  as  yet  been  sufficient  to  satisfy  their  importunities,)  affords 
the  most  irrefutable  proofs  of  the  incorrectness  of  their  declaration. 
But  we  doubt  not  that  it  will  be  said,  that  our  statements  and  reason- 


11 

ings,  however  true  they  may  appear,  are  founded  on  some  of  those 
theories  of  free  trade,  which,  however  sound  in  principle,  cannot  he 
relied  upon  for  correct  practical  results. 

We  will  then  produce  some  facts,  in  which  our  opponents  so  often 
allege  that  we  are  deficient,  which,  we  think,  will  satisfy  the  most 
prejudiced  of  the  truth  of  our  position. 

1st.  The  article  of  cotton  goods  is  that  which,  of  all  others,  has 
been  the  most  highly  favored,  and  which  has  made  the  greatest  ad- 
vances to  perfection.  It  is  thus  noticed  in  the  New  York  Tariff  Ad- 
dress. "  In  the  article  of  cotton,  it  is  admitted  that  our  manufac- 
ture has  arrived  at  such  perfection  in  the  production  of  the  coarse 
fabrics,  that  they  are  not  only  furnished  at  little  more  than  one  half 
the  cost  which  the  imported  articles  of  the  same  kirtd  bore  a  few 
years  ago,  but  they  are  produced  as  cheaply,  at  the  present  time, 
as  our  foreign  rivals,  under  all  the  excitement  of  the  American 
competition,  are  able  to  furnish  them.  They  have  had  a  constant 
and  increasing  demand  for  several  years  for  exportation  as  well  as 
for  home  consumption.  None  but  the  finest  qualities  are  imported, 
which  are  little,  if  at  all,  affected  by  the  minimum  duly." 

This  statement,  in  connexion  with  their  declaration  that  the  inva- 
riable effect  of  the  Tariff  has  been  to  lower  the  prices  of  goods  to 
the  consumer,  is  evidently  intended  to  impress  on  the  minds  of  their 
readers  a  belief,  that  cotton  goods  are  manufactured  here  cheaper 
than  they  could  be  afforded  from  abroad,  had  the  protecting  duties 
not  been  established  ;  and  as  a  proof  of  it,  they  refer  to  an  increas- 
ing exportation  of  these  fabrics  for  some  years  past. 

Our  answer  to  this  is,  that  so  much  cheaper  are  cot! on  goods  in 
Europe  and  elsewhere  that  from  1821  to  1830,  inclusive,  (10  years) 
we  have  imported  cotton  goods  to  the  value  of  92.132,000  dollars  : 
deduct  20,000,000  dollars  for  exportation,  and  there  remains 
72,000,000  dollars  consumed  here.  The  duties,  during  this  peri- 
od, have  ranged  from  6£  to  8^  cts.  per  square  yard,  under  the  min- 
imum valuation,  which  embraces  the  coarse  and  middling  qualities, 
and25y?er  cent,  on  all  costing  25  cts.  and  over; — this  was  subse- 
quently altered  to  30  and  35  cts.  per  square  yard,  making  the  du- 
ties on  coarse  goods  50  a  100  per  cent.',  and  on  finer  sorts  25  per 
cent.;  thus,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  the  "American 
System,"  taxing  the  people  not  in  proportion  to  their  wealth,  but  their 
want  of  it.  These  goods  paid  an  average  duty  of  at  least  40  per 
cent.,  which,  with  20  per  cent,  charges  of  importation,  making  60 
per  cent,  on  72,000,000  dollars,  carries  up  the  cost  to  the  consumer 
to  115,000,000  dollars;  of  which  28,800,000  dollars  was  the 
amount  of  protecting  duties  levied  on  these  goods  for  the  benefit 
of  the  manufacturers.  Yet  we  are  told  that  the  invariable  opera- 
tion of  the  Tariff  has  been  to  lower  the  price  of  protected  goods  to 
the  consumers. 


12 

But  large  as  lias  been  the  amount  of  imported  cottons  on  which 
so  heavy  a  tax  has  been  actually  paid,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that 
an  equal,  or  perhaps  greater  amount  has  been  excluded  from  the 
market,  bv  prohibitory  duties  ;  and  in  consequence  of  this  exclusion, 
the  consumers  have  been  compelled  to  purchase  the  domestic,  arti- 
cle, at  even  a  greater  additional  cost  than  the  amount  actually  paid 
for  duties  on  those  which  were  admitted  :  this,  in  a  former  part  of 
our  statement  we  estimated  at  8,000,000  dollars  per  annum ; 
making  80,000,000  dollars  in  the  time  referred  to,  and  making  the 
whole  sum  taxed  for  the  protection  of  this  class  of  manufacturers 
for  ten  years  only,  one  hundred  and  fiftv-two   millions   of 

DOLLARS. 

But  it  appears  by  the  Address  that  we  export  cotton  fabrics  ;  and 
this  has  often  been  mentioned  as  among  the  unanswerable  proofs  of 
the  superior  cheapness  of  our  cotton  manufactures  to  those  of  any 
other  country,  and  consequently  that  the  duties,  high  as  they  are, 
may  be  considered  as  nominal.  The  assertion  was  made  by  Mr. 
Niles,  and  has  been  repeated  in  innumerable  speeches  and  essays, 
that,  so  much  cheaper  were  cotton  goods  in  this  country  than  in 
England,  "  that  we  could  undersell  the  British  in  every  foreign  mar- 
ket at  which  our  goods  are  received  on  the  same  terms  as  theirs." 

Now  it  is  true  that,  in  such  a  various  and  extensive  commerce 
as  we  pursue,  there  are  many  markets  where  assorted  cargoes  are 
required,  and  in  making  them  up,  domestic  cottons  are  taken  in  small 
quantities  and  occasionally  in  large  ones ;  and  in  some  countries 
they  have  answered  the  purposes  of  the  shippers  ;  but  it  cannot  be 
inferred  from  the  small  quantity  of  goods  we  export,  that  we  can 
manufacture  as  cheaply  as  in  England.  Our  largest  exportation  was 
1,318,000  dollars,  whilst  that  of  Great  Britain  has  been  as  high  as 
90,000,000  dollars,  and  may  average  75  or  80,000,000  dollars. 

But  there  is  another  view  of  this  matter,  which  shows  how  little 
may  be  inferred  from  the  fact  of  our  making  small  foreign  shipments, 
as  to  the  superior  cheapness  of  our  fabrics  for  exportation  over  for- 
eign cotton  fabrics  ;  and  it  is  this,  that  if  cotton  goods  were  low 
enough  here  lo  undersell  the  British,  we  should  neither  import  them 
at  an  expense  of  GO  per  cent.,  for  consumption,  nor  at  an  expense 
of  20  per  cent.,  for  exportation  ;  nor  should  we  send  our  ships  to 
England  to  carry  her  cotton  fabrics  to  Asia  and  elsewhere,  as  is  done 
to  a  great  amount,  and  by  men  largely  concerned  in  the  best  mana- 
ged factories  of  New  England,  if  cheaper  ones  could  be  had  at 
home.  On  referring  to  the  Custom  House  returns,  we  find  the 
amount  of  domestic  cotton  fabrics,  of  all  sorts,  which  have  been 
exported  since  1820,  being  the  first  year  that  a  separate  return  was 
made,  down  to  1830  inclusive,  making  5  years,  was  5,855,471  dol- 
lars. The  demand  for  export  does  not  appear  to  have  increased 
very  rapidly  :  the  exportation  of  1830  was  the  largest,  and  exceeded 


13 

that  of  1826  by  180,058  dollars.  From  inquiries  we  have  made,, 
we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  exportation  since  1830  has  very 
much  declined. 

During  this  same  period,  our  merchants  have  imported  from  Eu- 
rope and  elsewhere  for  exportation,  at  an  expense  of  20  per  cent.r 
9,861,557  dollars  worth  of  cottons;  which,  with  charges,  amounts  to 
1 1,833,892  dollars.  This  statement  of  facts,  accessible  to  all,  carries 
on  its  face  the  most  convincing  evidence  of  our  inability  to  undersell 
the  foreign  manufacturer  in  any  markets.  Indeed,  nothing  can  be 
more  absurd  than  to  pretend  we  can  do  so,  when,  on  those  very  goods 
which  we  manufacture  to  the  most  advantage,  the  manufacturers 
require  protecting  duties  of  50  a  100  per  cent.,  to  keep  similar 
foreign  goods  out  of  our  market. 

It  will  be  observed  that  the  passage  quoted  from  the  Address  as- 
serts that  coarse  fabrics  can  be  made  "  cheaper  than  our  foreign  ri- 
vals furnish  them,"  and  consequently,  that  the  duties  imposed  upon 
those  particular  qualities  are  unnecessary  to  the  manufacturer,  and 
therefore  inoperative  on  the  consumer.  Now,  it  is  on  the  coarse 
goods,  that  the  duties  have  been  raised,  whilst  the  duties  on  the 
finer  sorts  have  remained  as  originally  established  in  1816.  The 
duty  under  the  minimums,  which  was  intended  to  operate  on  coarse 
goods  was  fixed  at  6^  cents  by  the  act  of  1816,  to  fall  in  3  years 
to  5  cents;  which,  at  the  rates  cotton  goods  were  costing  in  1816, 
was  equal  to  a  protection  of  25  a  33£  per  cent.  By  the  fall  in 
price  of  cotton  goods  abroad,  this  specific  duty  of  6^  cents  per 
square  yard,  which  was  made  permanent  by  the  act  of  1816, 
amounted,  in  1824,  to  a  rate  of  duty  on  coarse  goods  ranging  from 
30  to  60  per  cent.  Yet  so  far  were  the  cotton  manufacturers  from 
beins:  satisfied  with  these  excessive  duties,  though  the  ratio  was  con- 
tinually  increasing  by  the  diminishing  cost  of  cotton  fabrics,  that  they 
immediately  demanded  a  further  increase  ;  and  by  the  act  of  1828 
the  rate  was  fixed  on  coarse  goods  at  8j  cents  per  yard,  leaving  the 
duty  on  the  finer  qualities  at  the  original  rate  of  25  per  cent.,  granted 
in  1816. 

Would  the  manufacturers  have  acted  in  this  manner,  had  they 
considered  an  increase  of  duties  on  foreign  goods  as  tending  to  low- 
er the  prices  of  similar  domestic  articles,  or  if,  as  they  assert,  they 
were  conscious  of  their  ability  to  keep  the  foreign  manufacturer  out 
of  our  market,  and  undersell  him  in  foreign  markets? 

Admitting  the  truth  of  the  declaration  of  the  New  York  Conven- 
tion, that  coarse  goods  can  be  made  as  cheap  r.s  our  rivals  can 
manulacture  them,  what  must  we  think  of  the  conduct  of  those 
whom  this  Convention  represents;  who,  since  1816,  have  been  de- 
manding increased  duties  under  the  pretence  that  those  which  they 
then  enjoyed,  and  the  still  greater  which  they  subsequently  obtained, 
were  insufficient  for  their  protection  ? 


14 

[{,  however,  the  intelligent  committee,  who  drew  up  the  Address, 
are  correct  in  their  assertion  that  coarse  goods  are  cheaper  here 
than  abroad,  and  that  the  finer  qualities  derive  little  or  no  aid  from 
the  minimum  valuations,  then  it  follows  that  no  injury  can  be  done 
to  this  important  and  valuable  branch  of  manufacture,  if  the  duties 
on  the  coarse  goods  should  be  entirely  repealed ;  while  the  finer 
qualities  may  be  left  with  the  25  per  cent,  protection  they  now 
enjoy. 

2d.  Next  to  cottons,  the  manufacture  of  woollens  has  been  the 
most  highly  protected,  and  of  late,  indeed,  has  enjoyed  a  higher 
ratio  of  protection  than  any  other  article;  the  duties  on  woollens 
ranging  from  45  a  200 per  cent.;  few  of  them,  however,  actually 
pay  over  75  a  100  per  cent.,  as  those  which  are  subjected  to  a  higher 
rate  than  this  are  not  imported.  We  make  the  following  extract 
from  the  New  York  Tariff  Address  in  relation  to  this  article.  "  With- 
out protecting  duties,  American  wool  would  be  reduced  one  half  in 
quantity  and  in  price."  Again — "  for  like  every  thing  else,  woollen 
goods  have  fallen  20  to  25  per  cent,  since  the  last  Tariff.  The  im- 
mediate effect  of  that  act,  by  calling  a  large  number  of  additional 
clothiers  into  active  enterprize  was  to  cause  a  decline  in  prices  ru- 
inous to  many  of  those  before  engaged  in  the  occupation."  Again — 
"  the  finest  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  are  not  much  made 
in  the  United  States,  but  we  may  assert,  without  fear  of  contradiction, 
that  nine-tenths  of  the  American  people  who  do  not  affect  foreign 
luxuries  and  fashions,  may  be  clothed  with  woollen,  cotton,  fur  and 
leather  fabrics,  of  their  own  country,  better  and  cheaper  than  either 
could  have  been  obtained  abroad,  if  the  Tariff' had  never  been  en- 
acted." 

The  same  assertion  is  here  made  as  in  the  case  of  cotton  goods, 
namely,  that  articles  which  are  protected  by  excessive  duties  against 
the  competition  of  similar  articles  made  abroad,  are  now  obtainable 
by  the  consumers  at  lower  prices  than  the  foreign  ones  would  be,  if 
these  duties  had  never  been  enacted.  Now  if  this  were  true,  it  is 
very  evident  that  the  existing  duties  are  inoperative,  and  consequent- 
ly that  no  goods  would  be  imported  if  they  were  repealed.  What 
then  is  the  fact  ?  Have  woollen  goods  ceased  to  be  imported  ?  To 
ascertain  the  truth  of  this  matter  we  refer  to  l be  Treasury  Reports 
lor  tbe  past  l<>  yearsj  inclusive  of  1830,  and  find  the  whole  amount 
of  woollens  imported  is  83,300,000  dollars,  of  which  about  3,000,000 
were  exported,  leaving  for  consumption  80,000,000  dollars. 

Tbe  existing  duties  on  woollens  range  from  45  to  200  per  cent.^ 
but  as  they  were  not  increased  beyond  33J  per  cent,  or  3G|  adva* 
lorem  till  1 828,  we  call  the  average  rates  actually  levied  on  the  above* 
importation  15  per  cent.,  and  the  other  importing  charges'are  20 per 
cent.  1 1,  then,  we  add  <if>  per  vent,  to  the  cost  ol  the  woollens,  we 
shall  find  the  full  cost  of  the  imported  woollens  to  the  consumer 


15 

for  ten  years  to  be  132,000,000  dollars,  of  which  80,000,000  dol- 
lars was  the  cost  of  the  goods  abroad,  and  52,000,000  dollars  the 
charges  of  importing,  which  operated  as  so  much  protection  to  the 
domestic  manufacturers.  Yet,  we  are  told  in  the  New  York  Tariff 
Address,  by  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Niles,  and  other  leading  authorities  we 
have  cited,  that  cottons  and  woollens  and  other  manufactures,  come 
cheaper  to  the  consumers,  than  they  would  have  done,  had  the  Ta- 
riff of  1828  never  been  enacted. 

But,  as  in  the  case  of  cottons,  so  also  there  is  a  larger  amount  of 
woollen  goods  excluded  by  duties,  which,  where  they  go  beyond  a 
certain  extent,  become  prohibitory,  than  is  actually  admitted  under 
the  more  moderate  rates.  Wc  estimated  this  amount  of  excluded 
goods,  which  would  have  come  in  under  lower  duties,  at  12,000,000 
dollars  per  annum,  equal  to  120,000,000  dollars  for  the  period  of  ten 
years,  making  the  whole  amount  of  goods  taxed  for  the  benefit  of 
the  woollen  manufacturers  200,000,000  dollars. 

This  demonstrative  evidence  of  the  unsoundness  of  the  position, 
our  opponents  have  attempted  to  maintain,  is  founded  on  facts  ac- 
cessible to  all.  Woollen  goods  have  never  ceased  to  be  imported, 
under  charges  of  50  to  120  per  cent.,  and  still  continue  to  be  import- 
ed and  sold  at  a  fair  profit.  We  have  before  us  a  schedule  of  24  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  woollen  fabrics,  imported  this  year,  on  which  the 
duties  actually  levied  range  from  45  to  100  per  cent.;  the  other 
charges  of  importation  are  20  per  cent.,  affording  a  protection  to  the 
American  manufacture  of  similar  goods  of  G5  to  120  per  cent.,  and 
on  which  there  is  still  left  a  good  profit  to  the  importers.  These 
were  not  fine  goods  only,  but  embraced  all  qualities,  from  the  cost 
of  55  to  555  cents  per  yard.  Many  members  of  the  New  York 
Convention  who  approved  and  signed  the  Address,  are  importers  of 
woollen  goods,  and  must  have  been  aware  of  the  truth  of  facts,  such 
as  we  have  just  stated. 

We  have,  also,  another  list  of  still  coarser  goods  which  are  prevent- 
ed from  coming  into  our  market  by  excessive  duties  imposed  upon 
them,  ranging  from  100  to  200  per  cent.  The  amount  of  imported 
woollens  for  1831  will  not,  we  think,  from  the  best  sources  of  infor- 
mation we  can  obtain,  fall  short  of  7,000,000  dollars,  which,  with  the 
chargesof  importation,  will  stand  to  the  consumers  at  least  12,000,000 
dollars  ;*  and  yet  the  nation  is  told  in  an  Address  signed  by  some  of  the 
importers  of  these  goods,  who  knew  to  what  an  extent  the  importing 
business  is  pursued,  and  to  how  much  greater  extent  it  would  be  pur- 
sued were  the  duties  lowered,  that  we  get  woollen  goods  cheaper 
than  they  could  be  obtained,  had  the  Tariff  law  not  been  enacted. 

*  In  addition  to  this  ascertained  amount  of  foreign  woollens  imported,  it  is 
alleged,  on  the  authority  of  respectable  manufacturers,  that  an  immense 
amount  of  what  are  imported,  are  admitted,  especially  in  New  York,  under 
fraudulent  and  diminished  valuations;    to  which  add  the  illicit  Lmportatioas 

*jo.  vt.  3 


16 

The  Address  asserts  that  those  who  do  not  affect  foreign  fashions, 
may  be  clothed  with  woollens  or  cottons  cheaper  than  they  could 

from  Canada  and  other  British  colonies,  where  the  duties  are  only  2^  percent,  and 
the  expense  of  transportation  from  England  not  exceeding  3  to  5  per  cent,  more, 
and  it  can  hardly  be  doubted  that  the  whole  amount  of  foreign  woollens,  as 
they  stand  to  the  consumers,  for  1^31,  will  be  at.  least  fifteen  millions  of 
dollars. 

With  regard  to  frauds  on  the  revenue,  Mr.  Davis,  member  of  Congress, 
from  Massachusetts,  in  a  speech  in  lr-27,  says,  "  that  nearly  half  of  the  duties  on 
woollens  imposed  by  the  Tariff  of  1824,  had  been  taken  away  by  the  modifica- 
tion of  the  British  Tariff,  and  the  other  half  evaded." 

This  is  the  inevitable  consequence  of  extreme  duties,  even  in  Great  Britain, 
with  a  coast  not  one-tenth  the  extent  of  our  coast  and  frontiers.  Mr.  Huskisson 
repeatedly  asserted,  that  when  a  duty  went  beyond  30  per  cent.,  the  smuggler 
divided  the  revenue  with  the  government ;  and  yet  that  nation  has  ten-fold  as 
many  guards  upon  the  revenue,  as  our  government  has  employed  or  can  em- 
ploy. From  the  following  extracts  from  a  debate  in  the  New  York  Tariff"  Con- 
vention, and  from  some  former  ones  before  given,  it  would  appear,  that,  under 
the  existing  Tariff,  the  most  extensive  and  open  frauds  are  now  practised  upon 
our  revenue. 

"Mr.  Schenck,of  New  York,  from  the  committee,  made  a  partial  report  re- 
specting the  evasions  of  the  revenue  laws,  in  which  they  state  that  they 
are  possessed  of  a  variety  of  evidence  to  show  that  frauds  are  practised  by 
importing  merchants  to  a  great  extent.  The  committee  express  a  confident 
hope  that  the  glaring  defects  in  the  laws  may  be  speedily  remedied.  The  re- 
port was  received   with  applause. 

"  Mr.  Cox  stated  that  he  had  a  communication  from  Mr.  Ingham,  which  went 
to  show,  that  by  the  mode  of  calculating  the  duties,  owing  to  the  rate  of  ex- 
change, the  same  articles  from  England  paid  about  two  and  a  half^cr  cent,  less 
than  they  pay  when  they  are  imported  from  France. 

"Mr.  Ellsworth,  of  New  York,  made  some  remarks,  tending  to  show  that  the 
facts  stated  in  the  report  were  correct  ;  and  then  referred  to  frauds  and  imposi- 
tions, which  daily  took  place  at  the  Custom  House;  frauds  on  some  occasions 
equal  to  four  hundred  dollars  of  duties  on  a  single-  bale  of  cloth.  The 
manufacturers  are  suffering  from  a  canker-worm  that  is  gnawing  out  their 
vitals,  and  they  do  not  know  it.  He  then  adverted  to  the  aid  which  the 
auction  system  afforded  to  this  species  of  fraud.  From  this  day  forth,  let  the 
newspapers  of  this  city  cease  to  say  there  is  no  fraud  ;  because  a  discovery 
has  recently  been  made  of  twenty-four  hundred  pieces,  attempted  to  be  fraudu- 
lently entered  at  the  Custom  House,  which  detection  has  been  a  saving  to  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States,  in  the  duties  imposed,  of  forty-eight  thousand 
dollars.  More  than  five  hundred  packages  have  been  detected,  within  six 
months,  in  attempting  to  enter  fraudulently,  and  but  one  single  package  has 
been  condemned  within  two  years. 

"  Mr.  Ellsworth  then  enumerated  different  modes  by  which  the  Customs  were 
constantly  defrauded;  and  referred  to  a  particular  individual  in  that  city,  who 
might  be  considered  a  wholesale  dealer  in  impositions,  lie  said,  some  time 
since,  a  Yorkshireman  had  some  goods  sent  to  the  public  store  for  examination. 
He  informed  the  Collector  that  he  would  not  permit  the  individuals,  whom  he 
had  appointed  to  examine  his  goods,  to  see  them.  The  Collector  was  astonished. 
In  a  few  days,  however,  he  received  a  letter  from  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
informing  him,  that  he  had  received  depositions  from  tho  Yorkshireman  alluded 
to,  stating,  that  the  individuals  named  by  the  Collector,  were  not  qualified  to 
perform  the  duty,  and  therefore  directing  him  to  select  other  persons.  Who 
teOffht,  said  Mr.  Ellsworth,  these  Yorkshiremen  the  way  to  Washington  ?  The 
truth  is,  it'scino  remedy  is  not  found  for  these  frauds  aiid  the  perjuries  connect- 
ed with  them,  our  sons"  must  cease  to  pursue  the  business  of  their  fathers.  If 
we  would  preserve  their  morals  from  pollution,  we  must  not  employ  them  in  a 
business  where  none,  prosper  IjiiI  those  who  net  fraudulently,  and  who  scoff  at 
and  deride,  as  valueless,  the  solemnity  of  Custom  House  oaths. 

Ml    Brown,  of  Masschusetti,  followed  in  the  same  strain  of  reasoning.     He 


17 

have  been  if  the  Tariff  had  not  been  passed  ;  thereby  implying,  that 
the  duties  are  inoperative,  except  on  the  finer  goods.  Now,  so  far  is 
this  from  being  true,  the  Tariff  is  so  contrived  as  to  hear  the  more 
heavily  on  woollens,  cottons,  and  most  other  articles,  in  proportion  to 
their  low  qualities  and  low  cost  abroad.  This  we  have  shown  to  be 
the  case  with  cottons,  and  it  is  still  more  so  with  regard  to  woollens. 
Thus,  goods  costing  10  to  30  cents  per  square  yard,  which  include 
flannels,  baizes,  bockings,  and  many  other  articles,  most  indispensa- 
ble to  the  poorer  classes,  are  charged  with  duties  of  75  to  225  per 
cent.  Consequently,  these  foreign  articles  are  principally  prohibited, 
and  the  consumers  are  compelled  to  pay  great  additional  prices  for 
similar  articles  made  at  home.  To  divert  the  public  attention  from 
this  injurious  operation  of  the  existing  Tariff,  it  is  said  that  cotton 
flannels,  formerly  imported  from  China,  at  from  50  to  GO  cents  per 

said,  that  seven-eighths  of  the  woollens  are  imported  on  foreign  account ;  that  it 
was  generally  done  through  Biitish  agents.  Four  of  these  importers,  within  a 
few  months,  have  imported  one  million  fire  hundred  thousand  dollars'  worth  of 
broadcloths  only.  I  am,  said  Mr.  Brown,  a  manufacturer,  but  I  would  not  con- 
sent to  have  the  duty  on  wool  repealed.  The  amount  of  wool  now  produced 
in  the  United  States,  is  nearly  equal  to  the  whole  amount  of  the  cotton  crop  of 
the  South.  In  five  years  it  will  be  more  than  the  cotton,  and  fur  this  reason  I 
would  encourage  the  growth  and  production  of  wool. 

"  Mr.  Cox  asked,  Does  not  the  remedy  consist  in  taking  the  goods  at  the  in- 
voice  price  ?  or  by  valuing  the  goods  at  the  ports  of  entry  ? 

':  Mr.  Brown,  after  some  preliminary  remarks  against  interfering  with  the  Ta- 
riff laws,  said,  that  he  was  one  of  those  who  believed  that  a  total  prohibition  of 
both  co'.ton  and  tooollen  goods  would  be  an  advantage  to  the  country,  but  the  Con- 
vention were  not  prepared  for  such  a  measure. 

"  Mr.  Cox  inquired.  Is  this  city  (New  York)  the  only  sink  of  pollution  ? 

"  Mr.  Brown  said, some  cases  had  occurred  in  Baltimore  ;  some  few  in  Boston, 
but  very  rigid  examinations  took  place  there.  New  York  contains,  said  he,  a 
numerous  class  of  British  agents;  one  of  whom  has  sold  within  a  year  nine 
hundred  th  msand  dollars  in  cloths  only.  The  remedy  for  the  frauds,  he  thought, 
would  be  a  forfeiture  of  all  goods  invoiced  under  value. 

'■  Mr.  McCulloch  contended,  that  the  time  would  come,  and  that  shortly,  when 
the  Tariff  must  be  levied  upon  thr  value  of  the  articles  imported  at  the  port  of  en- 
try.    Then,  said  he.  let  all  lace  it  without  fear  and  trembling. 

"  The  question  was  then  put,  and  the  report  accepted. 

oe  further  reports  were  made  and  resolutions  adopted — and  at  half-past 
one,  the  Convention  adjourned  sine  die." 

It  is  certainly  wrong,  as  regards  the  manufacturers  as  well  as  the  honest  im- 
porters, that  the  laws  should  not  be  faithfully  executed.  Whatever  the  duties 
are.  those  in  whose  favor  they  were  intended  to  operate  are  entitled  to  the 
full  benefit  of  them  ;  but  we  apprehend  without  some  more  guards  upon  the 
revenue,  that  the  laws  will  continue  to  be  evaded  ;  and  on  that  ground,  we  agree 
with  one  of  the  speeches  in  the  debate,  that  an  entire  prohibition,  would  be  the 
true  and  only  way  of  avoiding  that  evil,  and  of  accomplishing  the  object  of  the 
manufacturers.  It' it  be  wise,  just,  and  constitutional  to  prohibit  a  considerable 
portion  of  all  the  woollens  which  we  might  procure  50  per  nut.  cheaper  abroad 
than  at  home;  then  it  most  certainly  is  just,  and  politic,  and  constitutional  to 
extend  the  system  to  an  entire  prohibition  ;  for  when  the  principle  is  once  ad- 
mitted, that  one  class  of  citizens  can  justly  and  legally  compel  other  citizens 
to  pay  an  extra  price  for  the  productions  of  their  labor,  why  the  sooner  the 
system  becomes  general  and  is  carried  out  to  its  utmost  limits,  the  better  it 
must  be  for  tha  nation. 


18 

yard,  are  now  made  here,  of  a  better  quality,  at  from  15  to  20  cents 
per  yard.  It  is  of  very  little  importance  bow  much  cheaper  we  can 
make  flannels  than  the  Chinese.  There  is  no  doubt  that  we  can  surpass 
them  in  all  branches  of  the  cotton  and  woollen  manufacture,  as  much 
as  we  do  in  that  system  of  restrictions,  which  we  have  learned  from 
them.  But  we  do  not  depend  on  China  for  flannels.  They  have 
always  been  cheaper  in  Europe  and  in  this  country  than  in  China ; 
nor  did  we  ever  import  from  that  country  cotton  flannels  enough  to 
clothe  the  inhabitants  of  one  of  the  wards  of  a  second-rate  city.  A 
piece  of  flannel,  costing  10  cents  per  yard,  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  12 
cents  per  yard,  or  120 per  cent.  ; — a  yard  of  baize,  costing  11  cents 
per  yard,  is  subject  to  a  duty  of  22  cents  per  yard,  or  200  per  cent. 
If  an  importer  is  asked  whether  he  actually  pays  such  duties,  he  will 
answer;  No,  because  when  the  duties  exceed  75  a  100 per  cent., they 
become  prohibitory,  and  the  goods  are  excluded.  Still,  these  duties 
operate  on  the  consumers,  by  compelling  them  to  pay  a  double  price 
for  similar  home-made  articles.  This  part  of  the  taxation  is  wholly 
invisible  to  those  who  are  not  acquainted  with  the  cost  of  goods 
abroad,  but  is  not  the  less  real.  The  effect  of  these  prohibitory  du- 
ties on  coarse  goods,  flannels,  baizes,  &c,  has  been  to  give  the  mo- 
nopoly of  these  necessary  articles  to  the  home  manufacturers  ;  and  so 
great  have  been  the  profits  on  them,  that  flannel  factory  shares  in 
some  parts  of  New  England  have  advanced,  within  18  months,  from 
1000  a  1200  dollars  per  share,  to  3000  dollars  per  share.  We  could 
appeal  to  several  flannel  manufacturers  of  the  New  York  Conven- 
tion to  confirm  the  truth  of  these  statements. 

The  second  class  of  woollen  goods,  costing  from  35  to  125  cents 
per  square  yard,  which  embraces  low  broadcloths,  cassimeres,  coat- 
ings, and  all  other  fabrics  for  the  poor  and  middling  classes,  are  tax- 
ed, with  few  exceptions,  from  65  to  1  \0 per  cent.,  and  consequently, 
like  the  former  class  of  still  lower  priced  goods,  are  kept  out  of  our 
markets,  and  the  consumer  is  driven  to  the  dearer  domestic  article. 
Do  not  these  facts  refute  the  statement  in  the  Address,  which  affirms, 
substantially,  that  the  Tariff  bears  only  on  those  who  will  at  any  ex- 
pense gratify  a  luxurious  taste  for  foreign  fashions? 

We  come  now  to  the  finer  cloths,  which  can  be  consumed  only  by 
the  wealthy  classes,  and  we  find  that  cloths  costing  $3£  to  $5  per 
yard,  and  which,  to  pay  cost  and  charges,  must  bring  from  $5£  to 
.$'8  per  yard,  are  taxed  only  45  a  51  per  cent.  So  far  then  is  the  Tariff 
from  favoring  the  consumers  of  the  low  qualities  of  woollen  goods, 
that,  in  conformity  with  the  general  operation  of  the  falsely  termed 
"  American  System,"  the  poorer  the  consumer  the  more  heavily  it 
taxes  him  ;  and  such  is  necessarily  the  effect  of  all  restriction  on  the 
industry  and  occupations  of  men,  under  whatever  deceptive  terms 
,;t  may  be  disguised. 

JJiit,  enormous  as  are  the  duties  which  the  act  of  1828  imposes 


19 

on  woollens,  it  was  complained  of  by  the  restrictionists,  because 
these  duties  were  not  higher.  Mr.  Mallary's  amendmenl  would 
have  advanced  some  of  the  rates  25  per  cent,  beyond  their  present 
limits,  and  that  alteration  in  the  act  was  proposed  and  strenuously 
advocated  by  the  members  from  the  woollen  manufacturing  districts, 
many  of  whom  are  either  themselves  manufacturers,  or  the  pe- 
cuniary and  political  dependents  of  manufacturers.  We  say,  that 
amendment  was  supported  by  this  party  because  of  the  insufliciency 
of  the  existing  rates  of  duty  on  woollens;  and  the  present  act  w;is 
finally  opposed  by  many  of  them  because  that  amendment  did  not 
prevail.  After  the  act  was  passed,  the  severest  denunciations  against 
it  appeared  in  the  papers  most  devoted  to  the  favored  manufac- 
turers, and  particularly  in  the  editorial  remarks  in  Mr.  Nili  s' 
Register,  Aug.  3d,  1829.  He  says,  "  The  act  of  IS28  was  project- 
ed, arranged,  and  passed  on  principles  disreputable  to  a  Congress 
ot  the  United  States  ."  Again,  "  If  ever  a  corrupt  bargain  was  made 
in  Congress,  there  was  in  this  ;  a  quid  pro  quo  affair,  adjusted  out 
of  doors,  a  this  for  that,  not  to  be  mistaken,  and  capable  of  proof, 
as  we  think,  in  a  court  of  law,  &c."  Whether  Mr.  Niles'  asser- 
tions and  proofs  of  the  corrupt  motives  and  conduct  of  the  makers 
of  the  act  of  1828,  are  to  be  relied  on,  we  are  unable  to  say  ;  but 
his  character  for  honesty  never  was  impeached,  and  we  apprehend 
that  i'ew  men  are  more  in  the  confidence  of  those  most  instrumental 
in  forcing  that  law  on  the  nation.  Our  object,  however,  is,  not  so 
much  to  show  an  honest  editor's  opinions  of  the  character  of 
the  majority  in  Congress  who  passed  that  act,  as  to  prove  that  the 
manufacturers  were  dissatisfied  with  it;  and  they  were  so,  because 
the  duties  on  woollens  were  not  high  enough  to  meet  their  views. 
To  give  further  proof  of  this,  we  offer  two  extracts  from  letters  in 
Mr.  Niles'  Register;  the  first  from  Mr.  James  .M'llvaine,  whose 
name  is  recorded  among  the  signers  of  the  New  York  Tariff  Ad- 
dress. He  says,  "Nothing  appears  more  clear  to  me  than  that  an 
improvement  in  the  act  of  1^2S  as  regards  woollens,  is  most  serious- 
ly and  urgently  required.  It  ought  to  be  the  fust  act  of  Congress 
at  their  next  session.  Strike  out  that  pernicious  dollar  minimum  ; 
make  the  duties  payable  in  cash,  &c."  This  striking  out  the  dollar 
minimum  would  double  the  duties  on  articles  now  taxed  50  to  150 
per  cent.  He  concludes  with  the  following  advice  to  the  farmers, 
who  are  now  paying  an  immense  tax  on  many  of  the  necessaries  of 
life,  recommending  an  additional  one  on  woollens  : — "  Rut  if  the 
farmers  could  come  to  know  their  true  situation,  they  would  make 
short  work  of  it,  and  exclude  Rritish  woollens  entirely." — This  opin- 
ion, that  nothing  but  entire  prohibition  will  answer,  has  often  been 
expressed  ;  and  entire  prohibition  will  be  the  result  of  the  existing 
system,  if  the  attempts  now  making  by  the  national  party  to  return 
to  a  system  of  revenue  duties  should  fail. 


so 

The  other  letter,  to  which  we  referred,  was  written,  as  Mr.  Niles 
says,  by  one  of  the  most  respectable  and  worthy  gentlemen  in  New 
England.  The  writer,  after  complaining  of  the  act  of  1828,  adds, 
"  The  system  which  can  alone  sustain  him  (the  woollen  manufacturer) 
is  founded  on  the  principle  of  monopoly.  Take  him  and  the  wool- 
grower,  and  give  to  them  the  American  market,  without  foreign 
competition  for  fabrics  their  raw  material  and  machinery  will  supply  ; 
do  by  these  as  you  have  done  by  the  cotton  manufacturer, — and 
home  competition  will  protect  the  consumer.  What  then  seems 
requisite  to  sustain  the  woollens?  Repeal  the  1  dollar  minimum ; 
lay  an  auction  duty  of  15  per  cent,  on  all  sales  of  woollens,  either 
by  the  piece  or  package  ;  drive  them  to  the  shelves ;  reduce  the  duty 
on  olive  oil,  indigo,  soap,  and  dyewoods  ;  do  all  this,  and  you  will  save 
the  100  millions  embarked,  and  speedily  add  50  millions  to  it." 

We  could  quote  numerous  passages,  of  similar  import  from  the 
speeches  and  essays  of  the  leaders  of  the  Tariff  party,  to  show  that 
nothing  short  of  entire  prohibition  will  satisfy  them.  "  Give  us  pro- 
tection," says  one,  "  whether  50  or  150^>e/  cent.'''' — "  The  Tariff 
law  of  1824,"  says  Mr.  Everett,  "  was  framed  to  enable  each  article 
manufactured  at  home  to  sustain  a  competition  with  the  same  article 
as  imported."  Mr.  Webster  says  of  the  act  of  1828,  "The 
meaning  was  to  give  the  American  manufacturer  an  advantage  over 
his  English  competitor."  There  cannoi  we  apprehend,  be  the 
smallest  doubt  on  the  mind  of  any  impartial  man  that  it  is  the  set- 
tled determination  of  the  party  we  are  resisting,  to  carry  the  existing 
system  up  to  entire  prohibition.  The  question  now  at  issue  is,  not 
only  whether  we  shall  be  relieved  from  our  present  burthens,  but 
whether  we  shall  be  oppressed  with  heavy  additions  to  them ;  for, 
if  the  principle  be  established,  that  certain  classes  are  entitled  to 
tax  the  nation  for  the  benefit  of  their  particular  pursuits,  the  same 
privilege  must,  in  common  justice,  be  extended  to  all  who  may  ap- 
ply for  it. 

3d.  We  now  come  to  the  article  of  iron,  respecting  which  great 
pains  have  been  taken  to  deceive  the  nation,  by  attributing  the  fall 
in  price  to  the  effect  of  increased  duties.  The  chief  benefit  of  the 
protecting  system  to  Maryland,  Pennsylvania  and  the  Middle  States 
generally,  arises  from  the  tax  on  this  article.  But  we  shall  here- 
after show  that  the  quantity  of  iron  sold  out  of  the  States  where  it 
is  manufactured,  is  so  small  that  what  is  gained  by  the  iron  tax, 
which  goes  chiefly  to  one  of  the  wealthiest  classes  of  men  in  the 
Union,  is  paid  back  by  the  people  of  these  States  in  a  twenty-fold 
ratio  in  taxes  on  woollens,  cottons,  molasses,  sugar,  salt,  glass  ware, 
spirits,  slate,  coal,  oil,  stationary,  and  numerous  other  highly  dutied 
articles.  The  same  remark  is  applicable  to  hemp,  by  the  protec- 
tion of  which  Kentucky  was  seduced  into  an  alliance  with  the  small 
number  of  persons  who  are  really  benefited  by  the  existing  system. 


21 

The  hemp-growers  were  told  that  they  should  have  the  home  mar- 
ket for  their  staple  ;  hut  so  unfit  is  domestic  hemp  for  the  use  of 
ships,  that  we  are  still  compelled  to  import  as  much  of  the  foreign 
as  our  ships  require,  since  they  use  no  other  :  and  Kentucky  hemp 
is  not  now  half  as  high  as  it  was  before  the  act  of  18 1 G.  Our  navi- 
gation is  thus  hurthened  with  an  enormous  lax,  without  the  smallest 
benefit  to  the  hemp-grower. 

So,  also,  with  the  wool-grower.  He  was  promised  the  enjoyment 
of  the  home  market  for  wool,  by  the  exclusion  of  foreign  wool ;  yet 
the  importation  of  this  article  is  greater,  this  year,  than  in  any  for- 
mer one. 

"  After  the  ineffectual  Tariff  of  1828,"  says  the  Address,  "  which 
ruined  numbers  induced  by  its  vain  protection  to  make  investments 
in  the  manufacture  of  iron,  it  rose  from  90  dollars  to  105  dollars 
per  ton.  Under  the  influence  of  the  duties  of  1824  and  1828,  it  has 
declined  to  its  present  prices  of  from  75  to  85  dollars  per  ton  ;  and 
there  is  every  reason  for  the  confident  belief  entertained,  that  if  our 
own  market  be  protected  against  the  formidable  and  incessant  en- 
deavors of  the  British  manufacturers  to  control  it,  the  price  of  iron 
will,  before  long,  decline  from  50  to  GO  dollars  per  ton  ;  such  is  the 
irrefutable  proof  of  all  experience."  Again — "  The  duty  by  the 
law  of  181G  was  so  inadequate  as  to  cause  nothing  but  ruin  to  those 
concerned,  and  enhancement  of  price  to  the  consumer.  The  act  of 
1818  was  some  amelioration,  the  acts  of  1824  and  1828,  which  in- 
creased the  duty,  decreased  the  price.  Hammered  bar-iron  under 
a  duty  of  $22,40  per  ton,  is  at  a  lower  price  than  when  under 
a  duty  of  9  dollars  per  ton ;  and  improved  in  quality  from  5  to  10 
■per  cent  by  greater  care  and  skill." 

Here  is- an  unqualified  assertion  that  the  whole  operating  cause 
of  the  fall  of  iron,  in  the  markets  of  this  country,  was  the  increase 
of  duties  by  the  acts  of  1824  and  1828.  Now,  we  suppose  it  will  be 
admitted  by  every  one  familiar  with  the  causes  which  lower  and 
advance  the  prices  of  the  great  staples  of  commerce,  that  the  market 
price  of  iron,  like  that  of  every  thing  else,  is  dependent  on  its  cost 
in  any  market  to  which  the  consumers  can  resort  for  their  supply, 
whether  abroad  or  at  home  ;  and  that  the  price,  in  this  country, 
must  be  regulated  by  the  prices  in  the  cheapest  market,  whether 
that  be  at  home  or  abroad. 

That  the  prices  were  cheaper  abroad  than  at  home,  is  a  fact  which 
no  one  will  deny,  and  is  so  declared  in  the  Address.  It  is  there 
stated  that  the  rates  granted  in  1818  (which  were  15  dollars  per  ton 
on  hammered  and  30  dollars  on  rolled  bar-iron)  were  so  wholly  in- 
adequate to  protect  the  American  iron-masters,  that  numbers  were 
ruined  by  foreign  competition.  Yet  even  these  duties  amount  to  30 
per  cent,  on  Baltic  bar-iron,  and  to  125  per  cent,  on  British  bar- 
iron.  This  discrimination  was  imposed,  in  contrarention  of  our  treaty 


22 

With  Great  Britain,  under  the  pretence  that  the  British  iron  is  a 
manufactured  article,  though  it  is,  notoriously,  no  more  so  than  the 
Baltic  iron,  and  is  used  for  similar  purposes. 

That  this  excessive  duty  on  bar-iron  was  to  benefit  the  few 
wealthv  iron-masters,  and  not  the  numerous  workers  in  iron,*  appears, 
conclusively,  from  the  comparatively  low  duty  on  hard  ware,  which  is 
but  20  a  30  per  cent.,  while  that  on  British  bar-iron  is  150  per  cent. 

The  truth  is,  the  whole  system  of  taxation  is  maintained  by  a  few 
thousand  capitalists  and  politicians,  who  exercise  the  same  control 
over  the  legislation  of  this  country,  as  is  wielded  over  the  Parlia- 
mentary enactments  of  England,  by  a  few  thousand  landholders, 
who,  by  means  of  corn-laws,  tax  the  poor  man's  loaf  that  they  may 
riot  in  luxury. 

It  is  now  our  purpose  to  show  what  have  been  the  causes  of  the 
fall  of  iron  in  our  markets  from,  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1816  to 
the  present  moment.  First,  in  order  to  sustain  the  contradic- 
tory assertion,  that  high  duties  make  low  prices,  the  Address  states, 
that  the  acts  of  1816  and  1818,  though  raising  the  duties  to  30  a 
125  per  cent.,  proved  ruinous  to  the  domestic  iron-masters  by  the 
insufficiency  of  their  protection  ;  and  in  consequence  of  this,  the 
price  rose  from  90  to  105  dollars  per  ton.  Here,  it  seems,  the  the- 
ory of  lowering  prices  by  increasing  duties  utterly  failed,  it  being 
admitted  that  the  prices  advanced.  The  advance  in  the  price  of  iron 
at  home,  after  the  Tariff  of  ISIS,  referred  to  in  the  Address,  can  easily 
be  accounted  for,  by  the  advance  in  the  prices  in  those  markets  in 
Europe  whence  we  obtain  a  part  of  our  supplies.  In  1S1G  and  1817 
the  prices  of  iron  in  Sweden  were  £12£  a  £14£  per  ton  :  in  1818 
and  1819,  they  advanced  to  £15  a  £16  per  ton,  making  an  in- 
crease of  cost  of  10  a  12  dollars  per  ton  ;  to  this,  there  is  to  be 
added  an  increase  of  duty  here,  subsequently  to  1816,  of  9  dollars 
per  ton.  About  the  same  time,  there  was  an  advance  on  bar-iron 
in  Russia.  In  England,  the  cost  of  bar-iron,  in  1817,  was  £8J  per 
ton,  and  in  1818  and  1819  the  price  had  risen  to  £10  J  a  £12f 
per  ton  ;  being  an  increase  on  the  cost,  of  12  a  15  dollars  per  ton. 
According  to  the  Address,  it  was  the  increase  of  duties  in  1824  and 
1828  which  reduced  the  prices  of  bar-iron.     We  shall  attempt,  how- 

*"  The  duty  on  iron  is  particularly  injurious  to  industry.  This  article  is  re- 
quired for  the  machines  of  manufacturers,  f'>r  all  the  implements  of  agriculture, 
and  all  the  tools  of  the  mechanic  arts;  for  nails, of  which  6000  tons  arc  annu- 
ally made,  and  chiefly  from  foreign  iron  ;  this  is  one  of  the  very  few  manufac- 
tures which  we  export.  Afar  greati  r  number  of  men  are  employed  in  converting 
this  material  into  articles  if  use,  than  i  ttracting  it  from  the  ore,  and  surely,  the 

IHTXRZB1    0J      1     i     MART    OUGHT    HOT     In    BE    SACRIFICED    TO  THAT  OF  THK  FXW." 
Report  of  1820,  advocated  by  .Mr.  Webster  at  the  Fancuil  Nail  Meeting. 

The  duty  was   then  not  more   than   half  the   ratio  on  the  cost  of  iron,  that  it 
and  yet  it  was   then  denounced   as  a  ta\  on  the  many  for  the  benefit  of 
the  few,  by  the  most  enlightened  men  in  Massachusetts. 


23 

ever  to  show,  that  the  fall  of  prices,  since  the  passage  of  these  acts 
down  to  the  present  period,  lias  heen  occasioned  hy  a  great  decline 
of  the  prices  in  Europe. 

We  have  stated  that  in  ISIS  and  1819  the  prices  of  iron  in 
Sweden,  were  £15  a  £16  per  ton.  Since  that  period,  they  have 
been  continually  on  the  decline,  and  within  the  last  two  years  the 
prices  have  averaged  about  £10:  10s.  per  ton.  The  fall  in  price, 
then,  has  been,  at  least,  20  dollars  per  ton  and  the  decline  in 
freights,  insurance,  Sec,  3  a  4  dollars  per  ton.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  increase  of  duty  since  1818  has  been  but  $7,40  per 
ton  ;  and  it  therefore  clearly  follows  that  the  importer  can  afford  the 
article  cheaper  than  he  could  before  the  increased  duty — not  in 
consequence  of  that  duty,  but  in  spile  of  it. 

The  decline  in  the  cost  of  British  bar-iron  has  been  still  greater. 
In  1818,  the  price  was  £10:  10s.;  in  1819,  £11  :  10s.  a  £12:  10s.: 
in  1823  and  1824,  £8  a  £9 ;  in  1825,  (when  the  price  of  every 
species  of  merchandize  was  raised  by  speculation)  it  advanced  to 
£13,  as  in  the  Baltic  it  rose  to  £15  a  £16  ;  in  1826  it  fell  in  England 
to  £9,  and  has  since  declined  to  £5  :  5s.  its  present  price.  The 
additional  duty  since  1818,  is  7  dollars  per  ton,  and  the  fall  in  the 
markets,  whence  we  obtain  our  supply,  is  30  dollars  per  ton.  Is  it 
not  evident,  then,  that  it  is  the  fall  in  Europe,  which  has  caused  the 
fall  of  iron  here,  and  not  the  advance  in  our  duties,  the  effect  of 
which  has  been  to  prevent  prices  from  falling  still  lower  ? 

But  wc  are  told,  if  the  nation  will  consent  to  a  continuance  of  the 
tax  of  40  a  1 50  per  cent,  on  iron,  that  at  some  future  time  the  price 
here  will  fall  to  50  a  60  dollars  per  ton.  But,  we  may  ask,  what 
security  can  he  given  for  this?  or  what  reasonable  ground  can  there 
be  for  the  expectation  that  such  will  be  the  result  of  the  system, 
whose  supporters  have  been  continually  calling  for  more  duties  in 
proportion  as  they  advance  in  their  respective  branches  of  manulac- 
ture?  For  instance,  the  protection  formerly  enjoyed  by  the  iron 
manufacturers  was  lh  to  15  per  cent.,  and  the  business  was  then 
prosperous: — they  now  have  a  protection  of  40  to  150 per  cent., 
and  complain  of  its  insufficiency. 

But  the  boon  now  promised,  to  be  enjoyed  at  some  remote  period, 
never  probably  to  be  realized,  might  be  obtained  immediately,  by  a 
return  to  revenue  rates  of  duty.  Baltic  iron  at  a  duty  of  20  per 
cent,  might  be  afforded  at  70  to  75  dollars  per  ton,  and  British  iron 
40  dollars  per  ton. 

Having  shown  the  causes  of  the  fluctuations  in  the  price  of  iron 
in  America,  its  advance  and  fall  here,  in  consequence  of  its  advance 
and  fall  in  the  markets  whence  we  draw  our  supplies, — we  proceed 
now  to  notice  an  unworthy  application  of  the  authority  of  Hamilton. 
"Let  us  next,"  says  the  New  York  Address,  "consider  the  article 
of  iron,  and  we  will  introduce  the  notice  of  it  with  a  quotation  from 

NO.  TI.  4 


24 

that  masterly  report  of  the  first  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  (Mr. 
Hamilton),  which,  40  years  ago,  recommended  prohibitory  duties  in 
favor  of  the  manufacturers  of  this  article." 

This  is  the  deliberate  assertion  of  the  Committee,  sanctioned  by 
the  members  of  the  Convention.  A  reference  to  the  Address  will 
show  that  it  is  intended  to  refer  to  the  production  of  iron.  We  have 
carefully  examined  Hamilton's  report,  and  we  assert  that  nothing 
of  the  kind  is  to  he  found  there,  relating  to  the  production  of  iron. 
We  will,  however,  present  to  our  readers  something,  which  is  to  be 
found  there,  at  the  close  of  his  examination  of  the  article  of  iron  and 
manufactures  thereof.  Mr.  Hamilton  says.  "  A  question  arises  how 
far  it  might  be  expedient  to  permit  the  importation  of  iron,  in  pigs 
and  bars,  free  from  duty.  It  would  certainly  be  favorable  to  man- 
ufacturers of  the  article ;  but  the  doubt  is,  whether  it  might  not  in- 
terfere with  its  production. 

"  Two  circumstances,  however,  abate,  if  they  do  not  remove  ap- 
prehension on  this  score.  One  is,  the  considerable  increase  of  price 
which  has  been  already  remarked,  and  which  renders  it  probable 
that  the  free  admission  of  foreign  iron  would  not  be  inconsistent 
with  an  adequate  profit  to  the  proprietors  of  iron  works.  The  other 
is,  the  augmentation  of  demand  which  would  be  likely  to  attend  the 
increase  of  manufactures  of  the  article,  in  consequence  of  the  ad- 
ditional encouragement  proposed  to  be  given  to  manufacturers  of  iron 
wares.  But  caution,  nevertheless,  in  a  matter  of  this  kind,  is  most 
advisable.  The  measure  suggested  ought,  perhaps,  rather  to  be 
contemplated  subject  to  the  lights  of  further  experience  than  imme- 
diately adopted." 

This  is  the  opinion  of  Hamilton.  The  duty  on  bar-iron  was  then  5 
per  cent.,  and  we  leave  it  to  our  opponents  to  r<  concile  this  with  their 
assertion  that  he  advocated  its  prohibition,  by  duties,  as  now  im- 
posed, of  from  40  to  150  per  cent,  on  the  raw  material  of  the  very 
manufactures  he  wished  to  encourage.  And  even  for  these  manufac- 
tures he  asked  but  a  duty  of  less  than  a  cent  per  lb.  on  steel,  2  cents 
per  lb.  on  nails  and  spikes,  7£  per  cent,  on  manufactures  of  steel, 
and  10  per  cent,  on  those  of  iron. 

Towards  the  conclusion  of  the  Address,  there  is  one  feeble  effort 
to  account  for  the  fall  of  prices,  independently  of  the  causes  which 
we  have  assigned,  by  ascribing  it  to  the  additional  quantity  of  labor 
which  baa  been  put  in  motion  by  the  "  American  System,"  thus  in- 
creasing the  competition  amongst  the  producers  of  the  various  pro- 
tected articles.  Now,  this  argument  stands  in  direct  opposition  to 
an  established  maxim  of  the  restrictionists  ;  viz.  that  to  reduce  the 
prices  of  domestic  products,  you  must  tax  the  cheaper  foreign  pro- 
ducts of  similar  kind  to  prevent  their  coining  into  competition  with 
them.  Lest  we  should  be  accused  of  attributing  absurdities  to  the 
Committee,  without  foundation,  we  give  an  extract  from  the  Address. 


25 

"Whilst  we  assert  that  it  has  been  the  effect  of  the  protective  sys- 
tem to  benefit  the  consumers  by  giving  them  manufactures  cheaper 
than  they  had  (hem  before,  we  are  willing  to  admit  that  prices  hare 
had  a  correspondent  Call  in  the  same  articles  abroad.  But  this  fall 
of  price  abroad  has  been  the  result  of  the  competition  of  American 
labor.  It  is  impossible  to  advert  to  the  fad  that  the  United  States 
export  to  foreign  markets  six  times  the  quantity  of  domestic  manu- 
factures that  they  exported  in  1820,*  and,  at  present,  furnish  in- 
comparably the  largest  share  of  the  home  demand,  without  perceiv- 
ing the  tendency  of  such  a  competition  to  reduce  the  price  of  the 
same  articles  amongst  all  those  nations  who  aimat  supplying  us." 

It  seems,  then,  that  the  cause  of  the  fall  of  prices  is  attributed  to 
competition  of  the- American  with  the  foreign  producers.  Now,  as 
far  as  the  Tariff  has  a  tendency  to  exclude  the  cheaper  foreign  fa- 
brics, or  to  tax  those  which  are  admitted,  its  operation  is  directly 
the  reverse  of  what  is  maintained.  The  proposition  advanced  in 
the  Address,  that  the  effect  of  competition  is  to  reduce  prices,  is 
correct ;  and  so  it  is,  also,  that  to  restrain  competition  has  a  tendency 
to  advance  prices ;  and  we  have,  accordingly,  shown  that  such  was 
the  effect  of  the  Tariff  acts  of  1824  and  1828,  in  compelling  the  na- 
tion to  pay  an  advance  of  from  25  to  100  per  cent,  on  some  of  the 
necessaries  of  life. 

*  The  export  of  domestic  manufactures  in  1820,  according  to  Vanzandt's 
Tables,  was2.(>44,000  dollars.  From  which  deducting  gold  and  silver,  mixed  with 
other  articles^  but  estimated  at  144,000  dollars,  leaves  2,500,000  dollars,  'the 
exports  for  1830,  amounted  to  6,567,380  dollars,  from  which  deduct  gold  and 
silver,  leaves  5,630,220  dollars.  Now,  as  we  had  a  population  of  upwards  of 
3,250,000  less  in  the  former  than  the  latter  period,  an  addition  should  have 
been  made  to  the  latter  of  about  one  third,  to  show  the  comparative  ratio,  which 
makes  the  export  of  L*20  about  3,300,000  dollars,  against  5,630,229  dollars,  or 
two-fifths  larger  in  amount,  instead  of  si\  tunes,  as  their  statement  implies.  That 
this  branch  of  commerce,  however,  has  not  increased,  may  be  inferred  by  adverting 
to  former  years  ;  for  five  years  ago,  with  a  million  less  population,  our  exports  of 
domestic  manufactures  amounted,  exclusive  of  gold  and  silver  and  cotton  goods , 
to  :»,!)t»3,361  dollars. 

But  the  export  of  domestic  manufactures,  with  the  exception  of  cotton  goods, 
owes  nothing  to  the  high  protecting  duties,  since  most  of  the  articles,  which 
make  up  the  list  were  exported  long  before  the  existence  of  the  "  American  Sys- 
tem;'' for  instance,  leather,  wooden  and  iron  wares,  soap,  candles,  gun-pow- 
der, spirits,  con:age.  hats,  Ac.  On  the  other  hand,  the  high  duties  on  raw  iron, 
hemp,  cloths,  S:c.  have  lessened  the  exportation  of  nails,  cordage,  wearing  apparel, 
and  many  other  articles,  probably  to  the  extent  of  some  millions  of  dollars. 
Reduce  the  duty  on  raw  iron  to  a  revenue  rate,  and  our  manufacturers  would 
undersell  the  whole  world  in  the  article  of  nails,  a  manufacture  which  grew  up 
under  a  moderate  revenue  duty. 

But  why  is  so  much  stress  laid  on  the  export  of  domestic  manufactures,  as  if 
only  one  branch  of  industry  were  worthy  the  patronage  of  the  government? 

Look  at  the  effects  of  the  system  on  exports  at  large,  which,  as  we  shall  hereaf- 
ter show,  are  annually  at  least  ."r),000.00(J  dollars  less  than  they  would  have  been 
under  a  free  trade  policy. 

But  why,  we  would  ask,  if  we  can  exportiron,  cotton,  woollens,  &c.  is  it  neces- 
sary to  tax  the  whole  nation  25  to  75  pa-  cent,  on  some  of  the  first  necessaries  of 
life,  for  the  promotion  of  those  very  domestic  manufactures  ? 


26 

But  if  we  adopt  the  reasoning  of  the  Address,  viz.  that  by  exclud- 
ing foreign  competition,  we  had  increased  domestic  production,  the 
only  mode  in  which  this  could  have  affected  the  foreign  prices  of 
the  protected  articles  would  have  been  by  increasing  the  supply  ol 
these  articles  in  those  markets  to  which  we,  as  a  nation,  can  resort 
for  supplies.  Let  us,  then,  apply  this  to  some  of  the  most  highly 
protected  articles  ;  and,  1st.  as  to  sugar,  which,  according  to  the  Ad- 
dress and  numerous  other  authorities  on  the  side  of  restriction,  has 
been  reduced  in  price  by  high  duties.  The  market  price  of  this 
staple,  and  all  others,  is  regulated  by  the  proportion  ot  the  supply 
to  the  demand.  The  natural  price  may  be  abcve  or  below  the 
market  price,  and  is  regulated  by  the  cost  of  production,  and  must 
be  sufficient  to  pay  this  cost,  together  with  the  average  rate  of  profit 
on  capital,  in  the  country  where  it  is  produced.  The  market  price 
of  any  commodity  cannot  long  differ,  materially,  from  its  natural 
price,  since  capital  and  labor  would  soon  be  attracted  to  its  produc- 
tion, or  withdrawn  from  it,  and  its  price  be  restored  to  its  natural 
rate.  The  market  price,  then,  of  sugar  consumed  in  this  country 
is  regulated,  not  hy  the  supplies  afforded  from  Louisiana,  but  by  the 
supplies  which  can  be  procured  in  all  the  markets  of  the  world  to 
which  we  can  resort.  Its  price  to  the  consumer  in  this  country  is 
regulated  by  its  natural  price  in  those  countries  whence  it  can  be 
had  at  the  lowest  rates,  with  the  addition  of  a  tax  of  3  cents  per  lb. 
levied  on  him  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  monopoly  of  the  home 
market  to  700  sugar-planters  of  Louisiana.  Enormous  as  is  this 
tax,  it  does  not  wholly  answer  its  purpose,  since,  of  our  whole  con- 
sumption of  130,000,000  lbs.,  about  55,000,000  are  still  imported. 
From  these  facts,  the  correctness  of  which  cannot  be  disputed,  it 
follows,  that  if  the  cost  of  production,  in  Louisiana,  be  no  higher 
than  in  the  places  whence  we  obtain  that  part  of  our  consumption 
which  is  imported,  there  is  a  most  extravagant  and  unwarrantable 
bounty  given  to  the  planters  of  Louisiana,  amounting  to  more  than 
four  millions  of  dollars  annually.  Or,  if  the  cost  of  production  in 
Louisiana  be  so  high  that  this  bounty  of  3  cents  per  lb.,  with  the  ad- 
ditional charges  of  importation,  does  not  afford  a  large  profit  to  the 
planter,  there  needs  no  more  to  show  the  utter  absurdity,  as  well  as 
injustice,  of  forcing  the  cultivation  of  a  staple,  which  costs  the  pro- 
ducer more  than  twice  as  much  as  a  similar  article  costs  abroad  ;  and 
especially  as  this  article  can  be  obtained  in  exchange  for  the  pro- 
ductions of  our  soil,  and  from  places  nearer  to  our  principal  ports 
than  Louisiana. 

When  the  act  of  1816  was  passed,  this  commodity  was  much 
above  its  natural  price.  Jt  has,  since,  fallen  so  much  as  to  be  gen- 
erally considered  below  it.  But  the  produce  of  Louisiana  can  have 
no  other  influence  in  reducing  the  price  of  sugar  than  an  equal  quan- 
tity produced  in  any  other  country  to  which  wc  have  access  for  a 


27 

supply.  Now,  we  have  before  shown,  that  the  utmost  accession  to 
the  supply  of  sugar  from  the  protection  of  100  per  cent,  granted  to 
Louisiana,  is  50,000,000  or  55,000,000  lbs.— about  2$  per  cent,  of 
the  whole  annual  supply  of  the  article,  which,  as  we  have  previous- 
ly stated,  is  not  less  than  2,000,000,000  pounds. 

We  readily  admit,  that  even  a  quantity  so  small  in  proportion  to 
the  whole,  might  have  some  effect  on  prices,  provided  all  the  sugar 
lands  in  the  countries  to  which  we  can  resort  for  supplies,  had  been 
in  requisition,  so  that  the  55  millions  of  pounds* additional,  furnished 
by  Louisiana,  could  not  have  been  raised  elsewhere.  It  is  notorious, 
however,  that  this  was  not  the  case ;  and  it  is  therefore  certain,  that 
sugar  would  have  declined  to  its  present  rate,  even  had  the  cane 
never  been  planted  in  Louisiana.* 

*  We  have  already  discussed  the  su<rar  tax  very  folly  ;  but  having  met  with 
the. following  statement,  which  throws  much  light  on  this  question,  we  have 
thought  proper  to  lay  it  before,  the  reader.  It  was  written  by  a  gentleman  who 
is  familiar  with  the  subject,  and  acquainted  with  the  process  of  cultivating  and 
manufacturing  the  article. 

"  DUTIES  ON  SUGAR.     Frcm  the  Boston  Daily  Advertiser. 

"  The  question,  whether  the  duty  on  sugar,  of  three  cents  per  pound,  ought  to 
be  reduced,  will  soon  present  itself  again  to  Congress,  and  it  is  proper  that  the 
public  should  forma  correct  opinion  on  the  subject.  As  the  revenue,  arising 
from  this  source,  will  not  any  longer  be  required  by  the  Treasury,  or,  at  least, 
onlv  for  a  short  time,  this  duty,  which  was  originally  imposed  for  the  revenue, 
if  it  be  continued,  will  assume  the  character  >>i'  a  protective  one.  As  it  is  for 
the  direct  interest  of  the  planters  of  Louisiana,  that  this  duty  should  be  contin- 
ued, increasing,  as  it  does,  the  price  of  their  sugar  the  whole  amount  of  the 
duty,  it  is  natural  they  should  be  alarmed  at  the  proposal  to  reduce  it,  and  pro- 
test against  the  incisure.  It  was  an  ingenious  device,  to  apply  to  the  planters 
themselves  exclusively,  for  such  information  as  would  be  necessary  to  an  en- 
lightened and  impartial  decision.  An  opponent  to  the  reduction  of  the  duty, 
might  feel  confident  that  the  planters  would  not  make  so  frank  a  confession  of 
excessive  profits,  as  would  induce  Congress  to  reduce  them.  On  the  contrary, 
it  would  not  be  uncandid  to  presume,  tna'l  they  would  make  a  dismal  represen- 
tation of  their  condition,  and  depri  i  diminution  of  this  duty,  as 
productive  of  their  ruin.  Such  representations  have,  in  fact,  been  made.  The 
House  of  Representatives  having,  on  the  25th  January,  1830,  requested  the 
Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  lay  before  them  "  a  well-digested  manual,  contain- 
ing the  best  practical  information  on  the  cultivation  of  the  sugar-cane,  and  the 
fabrication  and  refinement  of  sugar,  including  the  most  modern  improvements," 
he  accordingly,  last  January,  reported  several  communications  which  he  receiv- 
ed from  the  planters,  in  answer  to  a  circular  containing  twelve  interrogatories. 
They  were  published  by  Congress,  and  form  a  pamphlet  of  sixty  pages.  The 
communications  received,  were  from  the  Central  Committee  i  fthe  sugar  plant- 
ers of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  the  sugar-planters  of  the  parish  of  St.  James,  the 
Agricultural  Society  of  Baton  Rouge,  J.  S  Johnston,  Esq  .  T.  Henderson,  and 
T.  Spaulding.  They  give,  in  few  words,  the  common  and  familiar  information 
on  the  origin  of  the  sugar-cane,  "  its  several  varieties,  and  relative  productive- 
ness of  each."  To  the  question,  relative  to  the  latest  improvements  in  the 
manufacture,  the  answer  of  all  is  equivalent  to  that  of  the  Central  C  immittee— 
"  the  ancient  method  is  the  only  one  in  use.  Some  planters  are  engaged  in  per- 
fecting it."  The  eighth  and  ninth  interrogatories  relate  lothe  average  quantity 
of  sugar  from  a  given  quantity  of  land  ;  the  number  of  negroes  required  to  cul- 
tivate it,  and  the  estimated  expense  of  making  a  given  quantity  of  sugar,  and 
preparing  it  for  market.     The  answers  to   these,  are  the  most  important  to  tho 


28 

Mr.  Senator  Johnston,  in  his  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, says  ; — "  The  present  price  of  sugar  at  5£  cents  is  sustained  by  a 

present  inquir)*  In  the  subsequent  remarks,  the  writer  will  rely  on  such  facts 
only  as  are  admitted  in  these  documents.  In  order  to  prevent  any  suspicion  of 
misrepresenting  them,  he  will  state  them  in  the  words  employed  by  the  respon- 
dents. 

';  Relative  to  the  cost  of  production,  the  answers  are  uniformly  the  same.  The 
Central  Committee  say,  p.  7 — <:  The  sugar,  up  to  the  moment  it  is  delivered  to 
the  merchant,  costs  the  sugar-planter  apout  3^  cents  per  pound  for  expenses 
incurred,  without  reckoning  the  interest  on  his  capital."  Mr.  Johnston  says, 
p.  51 — "  The  present  price  of  sugar,  at  5£  cents,  is  sustained  by  a  duty  of  3 
cents  per  pound.  If  that  duty  was  removed,  foreign  sugar  would  be  sold  3  cents 
less,  and  ours  would  fall  in  the  same  proportion.  That  reduction  would  bring 
sugar  below  the  actual  cost,  and,  therefore,  it  could  not  be  made,  even  if  slaves 
and  lands  cost  nothing.  A  reduction  of  two  cents  would  bring  the  price  to  ihe 
exact  amount  of  3.J  cents  a  pound,  the  precise  cost  of  the  sugar,  independent  of 
the  capital,  and,  therefore,  would  yield  nothing  to  the  cultivator."  The  Baton 
Rouge  planters  say.  p.  24 — "  From  what  has  been  said,  we  still  infer,  that  the 
slightest  reduction  of  the  present  duty  of  three  cents  on  foreign  sugar,  would 
cause  the  total  overthrow  of  all  the  fortunes  in  Louisiana."  Mr.  Spaulding 
goes  beyond  the  others,  and  asserts,  p.  39 — "  Cannot  believe  that  sugar  can  be 
profitably  grown  in  the  United  States  any  where,  for  a  less  price  than  six  dol- 
lars per  hundred."  The  Central  Committee  estimate  the  income  of  the  planter, 
while  sugar  has  remained  at  these  prices,  at  only  5  9-100  per  cent,  on  his  capi- 
tal, p.  12      The  same  result  is  adopted  by  Mr.  Johnston,  p.  57. 

"  For  the  sake  of  argument,  let  us  suppose  these  statements  to  be  correct.  What 
is  the  inference  ?  It  is  clearly  that  the  business  is  not  worth  pursuing,  consid- 
ering either  the  interest  of  the  planter,  or  that  of  the  public.  The  public  are 
obliged  by  the  duty  to  pay  in  New  Orleans,  5^  cents  for  sugar,  which,  without 
the  duty,  would  be  worth  only  3^  cents.  And  for  whose  benefit  is  this  sacrifice  ? 
Is  it  only  that  the  planters  may  derive  a  little  more  than  5 per  cent,  upon  their 
capital  ?  For  the  Central  Committee  of  Louisiana  have  come  to  this  conclu- 
sion, as  the  average  profit,  of  twenty  sugar  plantations,  during  the  five  preceding 
years,  situate  in  the  parish  of  Plaquemine,  "  a  parish  of  which  the  climate  is  most 
favorable  to  the  cultivation  of  the  sugar-cane,  and  the  soil  not  inferior  in  fertil- 
ity to  that  of  any  other  part  of  Louisiana."     (7.) 

"  While  New  Orleans  sugar  was  sold  at 5^  cents  per  pound,  brown  or  Musca- 
vado  sugar  was  sold  in  the  West  Indies,  according  to  the  admission  of  these 
documents,  at  3  and  3 .J  cents,  (p.  5s.)  The  fact  is  known  to  all  commercial 
men,  that  it  has  been  currently  sold  in  Havana,  Porto  Rico,  and  St.  Croix,  at 
2£  to  3  dollars  per  1 12  pounds ;  sugar,  too,  of  a  quality  worth  from  one  to  two 
cents  per  pound   more  than  that,  of  New  Orleans. 

"  The  great  arguments  in  support  of  the  Protective  System,  or  Tariff,  do  not 
apply  to  the  su^ar  duties.  The  former  were  laid  expressly  for  protection.  It  is, 
therefore,  contended,  they  cannot,  with  good  faith,  be  withdrawn,  after  capital 
has  been  invested  in  reliance  upon  them.  The  latter  wire  laid  merely  for 
revenue,  and  it  cannot  be  pretended  there  is  any  pledge  given,  that  they  shall 
not  be  withdrawn  or  diminished.  Again — it  is  alleged  by  the  manufacturers, 
that  their  protective  duties  are  laid  to  support  their  establishments  in  their  in- 
fancy ;  and  that  the)'  ma)-  be,  in  whole  or  in  part,  dispensed  with,  when  their 
establishments  become  mature.  Rut  sugar,  it  is  not  pretended,  will  hereafter 
be  made  cheaper  than  it  is  at  present  in  Louisiana.  Complaint  is  already  made 
that  their  best  lands  are  nearly  exhausted.  ••  Even  our  alluvial  lands,"  says 
the  Baton  Rouge  Report,  p.  24j"  on  the  banks  of  the  Mississippi,  inferior,  per- 
haps, to  none  in  the  world,  and  planted  for  twenty  years  past  with  cane,  have 
become  nearly  worn  out."  Further,  the  planters  do  not  pretend  that  they  can 
ever  compete  with  foreign  sugar.  "  It  will  be  asked,"  says  the  Baton  Rouge 
Report,  p.  31,  '•  how  the  West  Indies,  alter  paying  the  duties,  still  profit  from 
the  exportation  of  sugar,  and  that  we  cannot  r  Tlie  answer  is  simple.  Placed 
in  the  most  favorable  of  climates,  their  crops,  throughout  the  year,  are  uninter- 
rupted ;   whereas  we  have  but  two  months  for  the  rolling  of  ours.     Besides  this, 


29 

duty  of  3  cents  per  lb.  If  that  duty  was  removed,  foreign  sugar 
would  be  sold  3  cents  less,  and  ours  would  fall  in  the  same  propor- 

otlier  causes  militate  in  their  favor."  Lastly — the  Tariff,  it  is  alleged,  offers  its 
encouragement  and  protection  equally  to  all  the  States  and  people  of  the  Union. 
But  the  cultivation  of  sugar  is  confined  to  a  small  portion  of  it,  and  to  a  limited 
number  of  individuals. 

'•  Let  us  now  examine  the  principal  argument  in  favour  of  the  continuance  of 
these  duties.  It  is  this:  that  if  they  are  withdrawn,  or  even  reduced  the  cul- 
tivation must  gtop,  and  45,000,000  dollars  invested  in  sugar  plantations,  would 
be  lost.  In  other  words,  tiie  whole  profit  of  them  consists  in  the  extra  price 
which  the  duty  has  given  ;  and  their  value  depends  upon  the  disposition  of  the 
people  of  the  United  Slates  to  give  three  cents  a  pound  for  sugar  more  than  it 
would  he  worth,  if  the  duty  were  removed.  Is  it  not  obvious,  then,  that  the 
gain  of  the  New  Orleans  planter,  is  the  premium  paid  by  the  consumer?  and 
that  if  this  gain  were  diminished,  the  amount  of  such  diminution  would  accrue 
to  his  benefit  ? 

'■  It  is  far  from  our  wish  to  cause  the  ruin  of  the  sugar-planter,  nor  do  we  be- 
lieve that  the  cultivation  would  cease  on  the  diminution  of  the  duty.  We 
shall  endeavor  to  show  that  this  species  of  industry  may  flourish,  supported 
under  a  less  expense  than  is  now  paid  by  the  public.  But,  admitting  the  ex- 
travagant supposition,  that  this  cultivation  would  cease,  what  pretence  is  there 
for  saying,  that  the  whole  capital  would  be  lost?  This  capital  consists  princi- 
pally in  land  and  negroes.  Are  these  of  no  value,  unless  employed  in  the  cul- 
tivation of  sugar,  for  which  the  public  are  obliged  to  pay  a  double  price  ? 

"  The  above  remarks  are  made  on  the  ground  assumed  in  these  documents, 
that  sugar  cannot  be  made  in  Louisiana,  for  less  than  ~>S  cents  per  pound,  and 
yield  the  planter  5  9-100 per  rent,  on  his  capital.  Is  it  credible  that  he  deiives 
only  this  pittance?  If  so,  the  public  has  been  grossly  deceived  in  supposing 
he  has  one  of  the  most  lucrative  employments  in  the  United  States.  All  the 
accounts  of  travellers,  all  the  representations  of  the  planters  themselves,  did, 
before  the  proposition  to  reduce  the  duties  was  entertained  by  Congress,  present 
the  most  brilliant  pictures  of  the  prosperity  of  sugar  cultivation.  These  pictures 
were  just.  To  prove  them  so.  let  us  advert  to  the  facts  which  arc  adm'tted  in 
these  documents  : — The  Baton  Rouge  Society  say,  p.  27 — "  It  is  supposed  the 
capital  employed  in  sugar  works,  did  not  exceed  20,000,000  dollars  five  years 
ago,  but  has  gradually  increased  to  45,000,000  dollars."  This  amazingly  pro- 
gressive increase,  it  is  believed  by  the  planters,  will  still  continue.  Mr.  John- 
ston says,  page  57 — "It  thus  appears,  that  the  people  of  Louisiana,  under  a 
confidence  in  the  permanency  of  the  policy  of  the  government,  have  embarked 
their  fortunes  in  the  production  of  an  article  of  extensive  use  ;  that  they  are 
now  in  the  course  of  successful  experiment,  which  promises,  in  a  few  years,  to 
supply  the  consumption  of  the  country."  He  adds,  in  the  same  page — "  Con- 
sumption in  ItSi.")  will  be  175,000,  which  will  probably  be  supplied  in  that  time 
from  the  sugar  region.''  When  we  remark  this  eagerness  to  make  investments 
in  sugar  plantations,  and  add  this  additional  fact,  p.  27 — "  That  the  rate  of  dis- 
count of  the  banks,  with  endorsements  on  mortgage,  including  charges,  amounts 
to  nine  percent.,  and  the  greater  part  of  the  capital  employed  in  establishing  the 
new  sugar  plantations  has  been  borrowed."  it  is  very  surprising  to  be  informed, 
that  a  plantation  will  produce   less  than  (i  p>  r  rrut..' 

"  The  society  of  Baton  Rouge  have  exhibited  calculations.  They  made  two 
Reports;  the  first,  in  September,  1829;  the  second,  in  September  the  year  fol- 
lowing. It  will  be  amusing  to  look  at  the  figures.  In  the  first,  they  estimate 
the  value  of  a  plantation  of  1,200  acres,  40U  of  which  are  planted  in  cane, 
at  .....  1147,200 

"  The  land;  p.  23)  i<  valued  at  50  dollars  per  acre,  and  80  bands,  at  600  dollars. 
The  other  objects  it  is  not  necessary  to  quote. 

••They  state,  that  each  negro  cultivates  live  acres  of  cane,  producing  each  one 
thousand  pounds,  which,  at  5A  cents,  produces  ....  .*'-?">  00 

•'  135  gallons  molasses,  at  16  cents  per  gallon,         -  22  .">0 

"  Making  the  gross  earnings  of  each  negro,      ....  §2'J7  50 


30 

tfton."  He  further  says  that  at  that  rate  "  it  could  not  be  made  even 
if  slaves  and  lands  cost  nothing." 

"  The  annual  expense  of  such  an  estate,  they  say,  would  be  8,330  dollars,  which, 
divided  amono-  the  80  negroes,  would  be  to  each  105  dollars  50  cents.  This  sum 
deducted  from  the  gross  earnings,  would  leave  the  sum  of  192  dollars  50  cents, 
as  the  nelt  annual  product  of  the  labor  of  each  negro!  yielding  an  interest  of 
10  3-7  per  cent,  on  the  capital  of  147,200  dollars. 

"  Let  the  price  of  slaves  in  this  estimate,  be  compared  with  that  in  the  other 
states,  and  the  scale  on  which  t  It  is  and  the  other  valuations  are  formed,  will  be 
conceived.  Yet,  on  this  extravagant  estimate  of  the  capital,  the  proprietor  de- 
rived a  profit  of  10  3-7  per  Dent. !  The  same  society,  however,  in  their  second 
Report,  have  thought  proper  to  reduce  this  profit,  and  say,  p.  24 — "  From  later 
observations,  founded  upon  experience,  and  from  the  facts  contained  in  this 
letter,  we  declare  that  the  sum  of  1!>2  dollars  50  cents,  stated  to  be  the  nett 
produce  of  one  hand,  can  have  reference  only  to  the  abundant  year  of  1828; 
that,  according  to  more  recent  and  exact  calculations  given  above,  we  are  jus- 
fied  in  deducting  two-fifths,  and  thus  the  mean  nett  produce,  on  a  sugar  farm 
in  Louisiana,  of  one  hand  for  the  space  often,  or  at  least  of  five  or  three  j-ears, 
annually  amounts,  at  the  highest  calculation,  to  120  dollars."  This  product 
would  give  a  little  more  than  (>i  per  cent,  on  the  capital.  Now,  it  is  remarkable 
that  these  gentlemen,  who,  in  reviewing  their  first  Report,  were  so  careful  to 
detect  the  error  of  their  having  assumed  a  very  abundant  year  instead  of  an 
average  one.  have  omitted  to  detect  a  most  gross  and  glaring  one,  which  has 
operated  materially  to  diminish  the  rate  of  profit.  It  is  this;  that,  in  their  first 
account,  which  they  prete.id  over-rates  their  profit,  they  have  allowed  only  25 
gallons  of  molasses  to  a  hogshead  of  sugar.  About  twice  this  proportion  is 
stated  to  be  the  just  one,  by  all  the  other  reports.  For  instance:  In  the  Report 
of  the  planters  of  St.  James,  it  is  said,  p.  lb — "  From  forty  to  fifty-five  gallons 
of  molasses  are  supposed  to  flow  from  each  hogshead  of  good  sugar."  The  re- 
vised Report  of  15aton  Rouge  having  dispelled,  as  they  presume,  the  suspicion 
which  the  public  entertained,  that  the  planter  was  deriving  more  than  six  per 
cent.,  while  he  was  borrowing  money  for  his  investment,  at  ten — goes  on  to  say, 
]).  22 — ';  Nearly  all  the  property  in  Louisiana  has  been  converted,  or  is  daily 
becoming  transformed  into  sugar  farms,  under  the  sole,  firm,  and  natural  be- 
lief, that  the  duly  on  foreign  sugar  would  1  e  maintained  as  a  just  reward,  and 
merited  encouragement  to  our  fellow-citizens  of  Louisiana.  Georgia,  South 
Carolina,  and  Florida.  The  consequence  of  this  transmutation  in  Louisiana, 
will  be,  that  her  annual  produce  alone,  even  ii:  the  most  unfavorable  year, 
will  mure  than  suliice  for  the  consumption  of  the  United  States.  Thus 
v  ill  the  price  fall  of  itself  to  such  a  degree,  that,  were  the  duty  not  repeal- 
ed, the  introduction  of  foreign  sugar,  by  tending  to  the  loss  of  the  speculator,  will  be 
rendered  utterly  impracticable."  Again — "Let  it  ((  ongress)  only  trust  to  the  or- 
dinary progress  of  tune,  and,  in  a  lew  years,  the  reduced  price  of  sugar,  caused 
by  its  surplus  over  its  consumption,  will  be  equivalent  to  a  repeal  of  the  duty  of 
three  cents!''  Which  assertion  of  these  gentlemen  shall  we  believe,  that  Lou- 
isiana will  soon  be  able  to  supply  the  United  Slat  s  at  these  reduced  prices,  or 
that  any  reduction  of  tin1  price  at  present  would  produce  their  ruin  ?  If,  in  a 
lew  years,  the  planters  will  be  able  to  reduce  the  price  to  a  degree  equivalent 
to  a  duty,  it  requires  some  assurance  to  say,  that  they  cannot  at  present  culti- 
vate their  plantations,  if  the  duly  he  even  partially  reduced. 

•'  In  this  discussion,  I  have  confined  myself  strictly  \<<  the  reports  and  the  lan- 
guage ii|'  those    interested  in  llie  perma  Hence  of  these  duties.      Their  Cause   ap- 

peai  i to  me  bo  untenable,  that  it  lias  not  been  difficult  to  find,  in  their  own  argu- 
ments, inadvertent  admissions,  which  Berve  to  confute  them  It  is  painful  to 
read  these  rep.. its,  exhibiting  as  they  do,  the  fallacies  which  self-interest  tempts 
men  to  impose  upon  others,  and  Bometimes  even  on  themselves.  But  there  are 
point  in  which  the  reader  may  be  deceived.  It  is  admitted  that  sugar  land,  and 
negroes  in  Louisiana,  are  exceedingly  dear.  This  is  unguardedly  stated  by  the 
planters,  for  the  purpose  of  proving  that  they  cannot  sell  their  sugar  under  5^ 
cents.  The  converse  of  this  admission  is  beyond  dispute.  It'  sugar  did  not 
bring  a  high   price  beyond   the  cost  of  cultivation,  plantations   would  not  be 


31 

In  the  face  of  authority  like  this,  we  hear  assertions  that  we  shall 
shortly  produce  sugar  for  export ;  and  we  are  now  gravely  told 
on  the  authority  of  the  525  members  of  the  Tariff  Convention  at 
New  York,  that  our  protecting  duty  has  reduced  its  price. 

We  have  endeavored  to  show  the  causes  of  the  fluctuations  in  the 
price  of  sugar.  The  same  reasoning  will  apply  to  the  prices  of  cotton 
and  woollen  manufactures,  bar-iron  and  all  other  articles  which  have 
been  affected  by  the  protecting  system.  The  manufactures  of  cot- 
ton, in  which  labor-saving  machinery  has  been  so  much  applied, 
are  those  which  have  declined  the  moat  in  price  since  18 IG.  This 
article  is  the  most  frequently  instanced  as  evincing  the  benefits  of 
the  prohibitory  system,  and  the  fall  in  its  price  has  been  chiefly 
ascribed  to  the  increased  competition  of  our  manufacturers  with 
those  of  similar  fabrics  in  Europe. 

Let  us  inquire  into  the  extent  to  which  cotton  manufacturing 
is  promoted  in  this  country  by  the  existing  duties,  and  its  probable 
extent,  were  the  rates  of  duty  reduced  to  the  revenue  standard. 
We  will,  as  in  former  instances,  take  the  facts  on  which  this  ques- 
tion depends,  from  authorities  entitled  to  the  entire  confidence  of 
our  opponents. 

The  writer  of  the  article  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Americana,  to  whom 
we  have  before  referred  as  one  of  the  most  intelligent,  practical 
manufacturers  in  the  country,  states  the  consumption  of  cotton  at 
35,000,000,  lbs.,  producing  140,000,000  of  yards,  of  which  about 
10,000,000  are  exported,  and  upwards  of  20,000,000  are  printed. 
The  value  produced  is  12,000,000  dollars  a  14,000,000  dol- 
lars, and  the  capital  employed  is  25  a  30,000,000  dollars.  Thig 
statement  is  subsequently  corrected,  in  a  defence  of  the  article, 
and  the  quantity  of  cotton  annually  consumed  is  increased  to 
50,000,000  lbs.  We  apprehend  that  even  this  latter  quantity  is  an 
under-estimate,  and  that  the  consumption  of  the  whole  United  States 
may  amount  to  70,000,000.  A  considerable  quantity  of  the  raw 
material  is  still  manufactured  in  the  household  way,  and  this  branch 

bo  dear.  And  when  a  man  can  get  ten  percent,  for  his  money,  with  good  securi- 
ty, he  will  not  invest  it  in  a  sugar  plantation,  unless  he  believes  he  will  derive 
a  much  higher  interest. 

"  It  is  said  that  the  circumstances  of  the  planters  are  embarrassed.  This  is  no 
doubt  true;  and,  considering  the  usual  character  of  their  engagements,  the  fact 
could  not  be  otherwise — nearly  half  the  plantations  in  Louisiana,  we  have  seen, 
have  been  purchased  with  borrowed  capital  within  five  years.  The  prices  paid 
have  been  high,  according  to  that  of  sugar.  The  fall  in  the  sugar  market  haa 
disappointed  these  new  purchasers,  and  prevented  them  from  fulfilling  their  en- 
gagements. But  the  pin  nters  who  have  paid  for  their  estates,  are  exceedingly 
rich,  and  prosperous.  The  embarrassments  of  the  planters  have  arisen  from  their 
imprudence  in  engaging  to  pay  too  much  both  for  their  estates,  and  their  money 
borrowed.  There  was  the  same  spirit  of  adventure,  and  the  same  embarrass- 
ment when  sugar  was  sold  at  eighteen  cents  per  pound.  These  evils  do  not  de- 
pend upon  the  actual  price  ot  6Ugar,  and  no  duty  can  be  protective  against 
them." 

NO.    vt.  5 


32 

of  manufacture,  whether  of  cottons  or  woollens,  is  certainly  not  de- 
pendent on  the  protecting  system.  On  the  contrary,  it  is  injured 
by  it,  by  reason  of  increased  taxes  on  the  various  materials  used  for 
these  fabrics,  the  increased  cost  of  machinery,  and  of  many  of  the  com- 
forts and  conveniences  of  life,  increasing  the  cost  of  production, 
and  lessening  consumption.  In  estimating  the  production  ot  the 
cotton  manufactures  at  12  a  14,000,000  dollars,  we  apprehend  that 
the  writer  of  the  article  in  question  must  have  had  in  view  the 
amount  made  by  labor-saving  machinery,  though  he  refers  to  the 
whole  quantity  of  the  raw  article  manufactured.  In  a  former  part  of 
this  report,  we  have  estimated  the  whole  amount  of  every  descrip- 
tion of  domestic  cotton  manufactures,  at  33  a  34,000,000   dollars. 

Now  the  only  way  in  which  the  protecting  system  can  have  ope- 
rated in  reducing  the  prices  of  goods,  is,  by  increasing  the  quantity 
of  the  article  in  those  markets  to  which  we  can  resort  for  a  supply ; 
not  in  this  country  only,  but  in  all  ethers  to  which  we  have  access ; 
and  the  prices  will  be  regulated  by  the  cost  of  production  in  those 
countries  where  the  article  can  be  produced  cheapest.  For  cotton 
goods,  that  country  is  Great  Britain. 

The  quantity  of  cotton  goods  made  in  Great  Britain,  varies  from 
year  to  year,  and  no  very  accurate  estimate  can  be  made.  It  will, 
however,  be  within  bounds  to  call  the  whole  sum  200,000,000  dol- 
lars annually,  since  they  export  from  80  to  100,000,000  dollars. 
The  manufacture  of  cottons  in  the  rest  of  Europe  *  cannot  be  less 
than  200,000,000  dollars,  and  in  this  country,  it  is  upwards  of 
30,000,000  dollars.  The  question  now  is,  what  amount  of  our  cot- 
ton manufactures  is  dependent  upon  high  duties  ?     Mr.  Appleton 

•  We  have  taken  no  notice  of  the  cotton  manufactures  of  Asia,  though  they 
may  be  considered  as  constituting  a  portion  of  the  supply  of  the  world.  From 
the  cheapness  and  superior  quality  of  British  fabrics,  however,  few  of  them  find 
their  way  westward  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope.  The  quantity  made  in  this 
quarter  of  the  world  cannot  be  estimated  from  any  published  data  ;  but  from 
the  immense  population  who  are  clothed  in  them  most  of  the  year,  they  may 
equal  in  value  the  cotton  fabrics  of  Europe. 

Much  has  been  said  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  the  "  American  System,"  ari- 
sing from  the  increased  consumption  of  American  cotton,  consequent  upon  the 
non-importation  of  the  cotton  fabrics  of  Asia.  But  the  argument  is  founded  up- 
on a  misapprehension  of  facts;  and,  if  it  were  otherwise,  is  utterly  insignificant 
in  its  own  results,  as  regards  the  bearing  it  has  upon  the  consumption  of 
American  cotton.  We  have  before  us  an  authentic  statement  of  our  importa- 
tions of  East  India,  cotton  manufactures  for  twelve  years  prior  to  the  operation 
of  the  high  duty  system  ;  and  allowing  for  the  re-exportation,  there  were  not 
over]nine  or  ten  thousand  bales  of  Asiatic  cotton  goods  consumed  in  this  coun- 
try, and  the  material  required  for  their  fabrication  would  fall  short  of  one  per 
cent,  of  our  annual  cotton  crop. 

The  consumption  of  Asiatic  cottons  would  have  ceased  without  the  existence 
of  exorbitant  duties  on  our  manufactures;  for  long  before  the  first  protecting 
act,  the  labor- saving  machinery  of  Great  Britain  had  driven  them  from  the  Eu- 
ropean markets,  and  British  fabrics  were  sent  in  considerable  quantities  to  all 
parts  of  Asia.  At  this  moment  it  is  one  of  the  largest  markets  which  that 
•ountry  lias  for  her  cotton  manufactures. 


33 

affirms,  that  the  rates  granted  in  1816  (which  on  coarse  goods  were 
equal  to  only  about  one-third  of  the  present  ratio  of  duty),  were 
double  what  were  necessary  for  the  protection  of  our  manufacturers  } 
and  the  writer  of  the  article  in  the  Encyclopaedia,  declares,  that,  with 
the  exception  of  the  finer  goods  constituting  but  a  very  small  part 
of  our  consumption,  little  or  no  protection  is  required. 

From  these  data,  wc  think  it  would  be  reasonable  to  infer,  that 
our  system  of  high  duties  has  not  been  the  means  of  extending  the 
manufacture  of  cotton  goods  more  than  5  to  7,000,000  dollars  beyond 
the  amount  which  would  have  been  made  under  a  moderate  duty  for 
revenue.  This  is  1  to  li  percent,  on  the  whole  production  in  those 
markets,  to  which  we  can  resort  for  a  supply.  We  are  aware  that 
this  presents  the  matter  in  a  light  in  which  it  is  seldom  contemplated 
by  men  not  conversant  with  mercantile  concerns  ;  but  it  cannot  vary 
so  much  from  the  truth,  respecting  the  comparative  quantity  of 
goods  made  here  and  in  other  markets,  as  to  affect  our  conclusion  : 
so,  likewise,  with  regard  to  woollens,  the  price  of  which  is  regu- 
lated by  the  cost  of  production,  and  the  supply,  as  compared  with 
the  demand,  of  all  that  are  manufactured  in  the  countries  to  which 
we  have  free  access.  The  amount  of  this  fabric  produced  in  Great 
Britain  is  not  much,  if  any,  less  than  that  of  cottons  ;  and  in  all  Eu- 
rope, the  total  annual  value  of  this  manufacture  cannot  come  short  of 
1,000,000,000  dollars,  while  our  domestic  woollen  manufactures  are 
estimated  at  about  59,000,000  dollars  ;  and  of  this  amount  not  more 
than  6  to  8,000,000  dollars  can  be  considered  dependent  upon  the 
protecting  system. 

But,  say  our  opponents,  who  maintain  that  home  competition  has 
reduced  the  prices  of  the  protected  articles,  the  diminished  demand 
for  the  United  States  market,  in  England,  from  whence  we  obtain  most 
of  our  supplies  of  cottons  and  woollens,  has  been  the  cause  of  the 
fall  of  these  articles  in  that  country ;  and  in  this  way  they  would 
sustain  their  maxim,  that  taxation  lowers  the  price  of  the  article 
taxed.  But  what  is  the  amount  of  the  cottons  and  woollens  forced 
into  existence  in  this  country  by  protecting  taxes  of  25  to  225  per 
cent.,  compared  with  the  amount  produced  in  England,  whence  we 
get  our  cheapest  supplies? 

Our  average  purchases  of  cottons  and  woollens,  in  Great  Britain, 
for  consumption,  under  the  existing  duties,  amount,  in  the  aggregate, 
to  12  a  14,000,000  dollars.  Under  a  revenue  system,  this  might  be 
increased  8  a  10,000,000  dollars.  Wc  say,  might  be  increased  to 
this  amount,  but  we  by  no  means  think  it  certain  that  this  would  be 
the  case.  The  relief  afforded  to  our  manufacturers,  by  a  reduction 
of  duties  on  materials  for  their  fabrics,  the  reduced  expense  of  liv- 
ing and  the  various  advantages  of  a  free  trade  system,  would,  we 
think,  after  a  few  years,  again  reduce  our  importations  of  these  arti- 


34 

cles  to  their  present  amount.  It  is  true  the  price  of  domestic  goods 
would  fall ;  but  the  manufacturers  could  afford  them  cheaper. 

This  8  or  10,000,000  dollars  in  cottons  and  woollens,  which  we 
estimate  that  we  now  take  from  Great  Britain,  less  than  we  should 
take  under  a  free  trade  system,  is  2  a  2i  per  cent,  on  her  annual 
production  of  both  of  these  articles,  which  we  have  before  shown  to 
be  about  400,000,000  dollars.  So  small  a  proportion  cannot,  cer- 
tainly, be  considered  as  having  an  important  bearing  on  the  prices  of 
that  country.  No  one,  acquainted  with  the  manufacturing  resources 
of  Great  Britain,  can  doubt,  that,  if  our  duties  had  never  been  raised 
beyond  revenue  rates,  any  deficiency  of  domestic  manufactured  cot- 
tons and  woollens  would  have  been  supplied  by  an  extension  of 
similar  manufactures  in  that  country  ;  and  consequently,  the  supply  in 
our  market  would  have  been  as  abundant  as  it  has  been  ;  and  the 
prices  as  much  lower  than  they  now  are,  as  the  rates  of  duty,  neces- 
sary for  revenue  solely,  are  below  the  existing  rates. 

We  now  come  to  the  effect  which  the  increased  production  of 
American  bar-iron  is  alleged  to  have  had  upon  the  prices  of  foreign 
iron  ;  and  nothing  can  exhibit  in  a  stronger  light  the  spirit  of  exag- 
geration and  assumption  which  runs  through  the  New  York  Address, 
in  common  with  all  the  essays  and  speeches  in  favor  of  restriction, 
than  the  remarks  upon  this  subject.  "The  efforts  of  the  English 
manufacturers,"  says  the  Address,  "to  destroy  the  American  manu- 
facturer of  iron,  and  possess  themselves  of  our  market,  have  occa- 
sioned extensive  bankruptcies  amongst  them  in  England,  and  reduced 
the  price  of  iron  considerably  below  the  cost  of  manufacture  ;  inso- 
much that  a  convention  of  iron-manufacturers,  recently  held  there, 
resolved  to  reduce  the  quantity  made  20  per  cent.,  throughout  the 
united  kingdom." 

From  this  statement  it  would  seem  that  Great  Britain  depended 
on  this  country  for  the  sale  of  a  half,  or  quarter,  or  some  large  pro- 
portion of  her  iron.  From  reference  to  several  of  the  Treasury 
Reports,  we  find  that  the  average  quantity  of  British  bar-iron  con- 
sumed in  this  country  does  not  exceed  8000  tons,  being  a  little  more 
than  1  per  cent,  on  the  annual  production  of  Great  Britain.  The 
quantity  produced  there  in  1827  was  090,000  tons,  and  it  has  un- 
doubtedly increased  since  that  time.  Were  the  duty  on  British  raw 
iron  reduced  to  25  per  cent,  (the  present  rate  on  iron  manufac- 
tures), its  consumption  would  without  doubt  be  increased, — but  not 
so  much  as  to  affect  this  branch  of  manufacture  in  England.  The 
fall,  then,  is  rightly  attributed  to  over-production,  and  diminishing 
that  production  is  the  proper  remedy. 

Let  us  compare  the  whole  amount  of  the  production  of  American 
bar-iron,  with  the  supply  of  iron  in  those  markets  where  it  can  as 
easily  be  obtained  by  most  of  the  consumers  as  by  sending  into  the 
interior  of  the  iron-producing  States  for  the  home-made  article. 


35 

The  production  of  France  and  England  we  have  already  stated  to 
be  upwards  of  900,000  tons.  These  two  countries  contain  about 
one-fourth  of  the  population  of  Europe  ;  but,  as  they  have  the  means 
of  using  more  of  the  conveniencies  of  life,  it  would  not  be  reasona- 
ble to  estimate  the  consumption  of  the  rest  of  Europe  at  the  same 
rate.  It  certainly  would  be  within  bounds  to  place  the  consumption 
of  Europe  at  2,000,000  tons. 

There  are  no  means  of  ascertaining,  with  precision,  the  quantity 
of  bar-iron  made  in  tins  country  ;  the  most  accurate  statements  make 
it  35,000  tons,  whilst  others  carry  it  up  to  40  a  50,000  tons.  Were 
this  whole  quantity  brought  into  existence  by  the  protecting  system, 
it  constitutes  so  small  a  proportion  of  the  whole  quantity  produced, 
that,  had  the  ore  remained  in  its  bed,  no  great  effect  would  have 
been  produced  on  the  prices  in  those  markets  which  are  always  open 
to  us  for  a  supply.  But,  in  truth,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that 
high  duties  have  increased  the  quantity  of  home-made  iron  ;  because 
it  will  not  be  denied  that  immense  fortunes  were  made  by  the  iron- 
masters, while  the  duties  were  7£  to  15  per  cent. 

The  duties  of  40  a  150  per  cent,  on  raw  iron,  impose  a  tax  to 
that  extent,  upon  the  consumers  of  that  necessary  article ;  and  in- 
stead of  giving  increased  employment  to  domestic  capital  and  labor, 
deprives  of  their  employment  five  times  as  many  manufacturers  of 
iron  and  iron  ware  as  the  whole  number  of  persons  employed  by 
the  iron-masters.  To  tax  the  raw  material  40  to  150  per  cent. 
for  the  benefit  of  a  few  hundred  wealthy  men,  while  the  manufac- 
tured article  is  admitted  at  25  per  cent.,  to  the  prejudice  of  an  im- 
mense number  of  the  laboring  classes,  is  one  of  the  modes  by  which 
the  "  American  System  "  proposes  to  promote  domestic  industry. 

Thus  it  will  be  seen,  that,  in  every  instance  where  this  system  is 
pushed  home  to  its  practical  consequences,  it  does  result,  and  it  al- 
ways will  result,  in  a  taxation  on  the  many  for  the  benefit  of  the  few. 
And  there  is  no  part  of  the  whole  system  in  which  its  impolicy  and 
injustice  are  exhibited  in  a  stronger  light  than  in  the  tax  on  raw  iron. 

We  have  thus  attempted  to  show,  both  by  facts  and  argument, 
that  the  fall  of  prices,  which  has  been  ascribed  to  our  high  Tariff, 
arises  from  causes  entirely  independent  of  it.  Duties  have  been  in- 
creased, and  the  prices  of  most  articles  have,  nevertheless,  fallen, 
because  the  cost  of  production  and  transportation  of  foreign  articles 
has  declined  to  a  greater  extent  than  the  duties  have  been  increased. 
The  merchant  has  thus  been  enabled  to  furnish  the  foreign  articles, 
which  must  regulate  the  prices  of  the  domestic  protected  articles,  at 
lower  prices  than  before  the  augmentation  of  duties. 

We  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  go  through  the  long  list  of 
articles  heavily  taxed  by  the  existing  Tariff;  such  an  investigation 
would  occupy  more  time  and  more  room  than  can  be  spared  ;  but  it 
would  be  easy  to  show,  that,  in  all  cases  where  they  have  fallen  in 


36 

price,  the  reduction  has  arisen  from  the  same  causes,  which  have 
lowered  the  prices  of  cottons,  woollens,  bar-iron  and  sugar  ;  namely, 
an  increased  supply  at  a  diminished  cost,  not  in  this  country  alone, 
but  in  the  markets  of  the  world,  to  which  we  can  resort  for  supplies. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  a  further  evidence  that  increased  compe- 
tition, occasioned  by  our  protecting  system,  has  not  produced  a  fall 
in  the  cost  of  foreign  productions  coming  in  competition  with  similar 
domestic  productions, — there  are  instances  in  which  the  foreign 
articles  have  risen,  instead  of  fallen  in  price.  For  example,  the 
cost  of  clear  hemp  in  St.  Petersburg,  in  1816  and  1817,  prior  to 
the  operation  of  our  protecting  system,  was,  on  the  average,  104  dol- 
lars per  ton.  By  the  act  of  1828  the  duty  was  raised  from  35  to 
60  dollars  per  ton,  and  yet  the  average  cost  of  clear  hemp  at 
St.  Petersburg  for  1829,  1830  and  1S31  has  been  136  dollars  per 
ton.  Now  the  quantity  of  hemp  raised  in  this  country  bears  a  much 
greater  proportion  to  that  grown  in  those  countries  whence  we  obtain 
our  supplies,  than  do  the  woollens,  cottons,  sugar  and  iron  produced 
here  compared  with  the  imports  ;  and  upon  the  principle  of  compe- 
tition contended  for  by  our  opponents,  its  culture  should  have  re- 
duced the  price  of  all  kinds  of  hemp,  both  foreign  and  domestic  ; 
but  foreign  hemp  bears  a  higher  price  in  our  markets,  than  it  did  be- 
fore the  increase  of  duty  in  1828,  and  is  60  dollars  per  ton  higher 
than  it  would  be,  but  for  the  existence  of  that  duty. 

As  to  the  domestic  hemp,  which  has  been  so  highly  protected 
for  the  purpose  of  drawing  support  to  the  taxing  system  from  the 
Western  section  of  the  Union,  its  quality  is  so  poor  that  not  only  do 
the  navigating  interests  prefer  the  foreign  hemp,  loaded  as  it  is  with 
exorbitant  duties,  amounting  with  other  charges  to  nearly  100  per 
cent,  on  the  cost,  but  it  is  rejected  by  the  agents  of  the  present  and 
former  administrations  of  government. 

Having  admitted  the  fall  of  most  of  the  protected  articles,  and 
having  shown  that  the  true  causes  of  this  fall  were  to  be  found  in 
the  still  greater  fall  of  similar  foreign  articles  in  those  markets  whence 
we  can  supply  ourselves,  it  may  be  asked  to  what  cause  are  to  be 
attributed  the  decline  of  prices  abroad?  To  this,  we  answer,  the 
fluctuations  in  the  prices  of  goods  throughout  the  world,  since  the 
commencement  of  the  protecting  system,  may  be  attributed  to  over- 
production and  deficient  supply  ;  to  a  return  from  an  unsound  to  a 
sound  currency  ;  to  the  alternations  of  an  enlargement  or  contrac- 
tion of  the  circulating  medium  ;  to  rash  speculations  succeeded  by 
glutted  markets  and  revulsions  of  trade,  and  these,  again,  followed  by 
BtagnatioD,  depression,  discredit,  and  universal  distress. 

The  permanent  causes,  however,  of  the  decline  of  prices 
since  the  restoration  of  peace  to  the  wealthy,  civilized  and  industrious 
nations  ol  Europe,  and  which  may  be  considered  as  the  necessary 
consequence  of  such  a  change  of  circumstances,  are  to  be  found  in  the 


37 

vast  accession  of  capital  and  labor  to  every  species  of  productive  in- 
dustry ;  the  consequent  reduction  in  the  prices  of  raw  materials  ;  the 
abundance  and  cheapness  of  living,  attendant  upon  the  return  of  peace, 
which  have  increased  population  and  capital,  necessarily  producing 
a  decline  in  wages,  the  reduction  of  interest  of  money  and  profits  of 
trade ;  and  further,  the  substitution  of  machinery  for  a  large  portion 
of  the  manual  labor  formerly  employed  in  manufacturing.  To  these 
active  and  efficient  causes  of  a  decline  in  prices,  we  may  add  an  in- 
creased application  of  science,  skill,  industry,  economy  and  general 
good  management  to  the  business  of  agriculture,  commerce,  naviga- 
tion, to  the  manufacturing,  mechanic  and  all  other  arts  connected 
with  and  aiding  those  great  branches  of  industry  on  which  the  cost 
of  the  most  important  staples  of  production  depends. 

These,  too,  are  the  causes  of  the  fall  in  prices*  of  those  com- 
modities produced  in  this  country,  which  have  received  encourage- 
ment from  the  protecting  system.  That  most  articles  have  fallen  is 
agreed  on  all  sides ;  and  it  is  equally  undeniable  that  they  would 
have  declined  still  lower,  but  for  the  enactment  of  these  high  duties, 
which  have,  in  a  great  degree,  deprived  the  nation  of  the  benefit  of 
foreign  competition. 

*  For  an  elucidation  of  this  subject,  the  reader  is  referred  to  a  work  on  "Cur- 
rency," and  another  upon  the  "  Fall  of  Prices,''  by  Thomas  Tooke,  one  of  the 
soundest  and  most  perspicuous  writers  in  England,  and  practically  acquainted 
with  the  important  and  difficult  questions  he  has  undertaken  to  discuss. 


No.  7. 


TAXES  ON  SHIPS. 


There  is  no  species  of  injury,  to  which  the  people  of  this  country 
are  more  alive,  than  unjust,  unequal,  and  unnecessary  taxation. 
But  the  burdens  imposed  by  the  existing  Tariff  come  to  them  in 
such  an  indirect  way,  that,  to  a  large  majority  of  the  nation,  they 
are  wholly  invisible.  If  a  farmer,  mechanic,  or  manufacturer, 
were  convinced  that  all  his  working  tools,  machinery,  and  agricultu- 
ral implements,  were  taxed  20,  30  or  50 per  cent.,  merely  to  promote 
the  interests  of  a  few  hundred  wealthy  Iron  masters,  would  he  not 
complain  of  the  tax  ?  If  the  fact  were  demonstrated  to  him,  that, 
every  time  he  expends  one  hundred  dollars  for  these  instruments, 
by  which  he  gains  his  dairy  bread,  he  pays  from  20  to  50  dollars 
beyond  what  he  would  pay  had  the  nation  never  departed  from  that 
liberal,  wise,  and  just  policy,  established  by  Washington  and  his 
counsellors,  maintained  by  the  elder  Adams,  persevered  in  by  Jeffer- 
son, sustained  and  supported  by  almost  every  statesman  of  any  em- 
inence, in  whose  knowledge,  wisdom,  and  political  integrity  the  na- 
tion has  had  reason  to  confide, — would  he  not  consider  himself  in- 
jured and  oppressed  by  such  a  taxation  ? — a  laxation  imposed  upon 
the  poor  and  industrious  classes,  for  the  benefit  of  some  of  the  most 
wealthy  men  in  the  nation,  who  are  reposing  in  luxury  and  idleness 
at  their  expense.  If,  in  addition  to  this  partial  and  heavy  taxation 
on  their  working  implements,  it  were  demonstrated  to  the  mechanics, 
manufacturers,  and  farmers  of  this  country,  (as  may  easily  be  done 
by  any  one,  who  will  examine  the  bearings  of  the  existing  Tariff 
on  the  great  interests  of  the  nation,)  that  they  pay  from  10  to  50 
•per  cent*    on  molasses,  salt,  sugar,  cottons,  woollens,  linens,  glass, 

*  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  the  Memorial  drawn  up  by  him  for  the  inhabitants  of 
Salern,  against  any  iurther  addition  to  the  duties  of  l-lil.  Bays  ; — "  Why  should 
the  fanner,  the  planter,  the  merchant,  and  the  laboring  classes  of  the  commu- 
nity be  tend,  for  the  necessaries  of  life,  a  sum  equal  t>>  more  than  vnc  quarter  part 
of  the  whole  expenditure  on  th  ,  thai   the  manufacturers  may  pal  this 

sum  into  their  own  vocketsf"  'I  his  gentleman,  in  wriUng  that  document,  had 
th«  means  at  hand  of  obtaining  the  most  accurate  information  on  this  point. 
Now  i.'  the  "  American  System,"  in  its  infancy,  taxed  the  laboring  classes  'J.') 
per  cent,  of  this  expenditure,  how  intolerable  must  it  he  since  the  clu'ies  on  the 
articles  he  had  in  view,  have  been  more  than  doubled  ' 


2 

spirits,  wine,  oil,  slates,  coal,  paper,  books,  and  many  other  necessa- 
ries and  comforts  of  life  : — and  if  they  were  convinced  that  this  taxa- 
tion was  not  imposed  for  the  purposes  of  revenue,  but  to  gratify  the 
cupidity  of  one  class  of  men  and  the  ambition  of  another — would 
not  this  numerous  and  respectable  body  of  men  consider  such  a 
system,  under  whatever  plausible  name  it  might  be  disguised,  unjust 
and  intolerable  ?  Would  they  not,  by  a  simultaneous  and  vigorous 
effort,  remove  from  the  halls  of  Congress  men,  who,  through  igno- 
rance or  design,  have  so  long  exercised  that  power  which  was  granted 
them  for  the  preservation  and  promotion  of  the  general  welfare, 
chiefly  for  the  protection  and  promotion  of  the  pecuniary  and  polit- 
ical interests  of  a  small,  but  powerful  class  of  men,  whose  pretensions 
are  utterly  at  variance  with  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  great  mass 
of  the  people  ? 

Such,  as  we  have  described,  however,  is  the  effect  of  what  is 
termed  the  "  American  System  ;  "  a  system  which  cannot  accomplish 
the  objects  of  its  most  strenuous  supporters,  without  imposing  a  tax  on 
millions  for  the  benefit  of  thousands.  And  though  it  may  be,  and 
in  fact  is,  so  disguised  in  its  form  and  movements,  that  comparative- 
ly few  can  trace  out  its  consequences;  still,  the  evil  is  not  the  less 
real,  and  it  must  be  remedied,  or  this  nation  will  be  defeated  in  the 
principal  object  it  had  in  view  in  forming  the  confederacy,  under  a 
constitution,  which,  however  otherwise  construed  by  some  of  its 
modern  expounders,  was  intended  to  secure  to  every  State  and  sec- 
tion, and  to  every  individual,  a  perfect  equality  of  rights,  and  con- 
sequently an  equal  distribution  of  the  benefits,  as  well  as  burdens, 
incident  to  a  free  government.  The  "  American  System,"  on  the 
contrary,  by  legislative  enactments,  drains  the  pockets  of  the  poor 
into  the  purses  of  the  rich  ;  and  cannot  accomplish  its  intended  pur- 
poses unless  that  object  be  attained.  We  do  not  say  there  are  not 
many  who  advocate  this  system  with  a  most  sincere  belief  that  it 
is  promotive  of  the  general  welfare ;  but  the  leading,  influential,  and 
most  efficient  supporters  of  the  system,  are  not  among  those,  who 
are  under  such  a  delusion.  We  have  the  best  evidence  of  this  in 
their  recorded  opinions,  formed  and  expressed  before  their  feelings 
and  judgments  were  influenced  and  swayed  by  the  enormous  pro- 
fits, which  they  have  realized. 

Exorbitant  as  are  the  taxes  actually  paid  by  the  people,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  restrictive  and  high  duty  system,  few,  comparatively 
speaking,  of  those  on  whom  the  burden  falls  the  heaviest,  are  able 
to  estimate  the  amount  of  this  tax  on  the  cost  of  those  articles  of 
daily  use  and  consumption,  the  prices  of  which  are  much  enhanced 
by  the  existing  duties.  Let  us,  then,  endeavor  to  bring  home  to  the 
apprehensions  of  our  readers,  and  to  their  personal  interests,  the  ope- 
ration of  the  Tariff,  in  the  increased  cost  of  an  article  of  manufac- 
ture, consequent  upon  the  taxes  paid  on  the  principal  materials  used 
in  its  formation.       We  mean  that    manufactured  domestic  fabric, 


composed  of  wood,  iron,  cordage,  cloth,  Sic.  which  we  understand  by 
the  term  ship.  This  object  has  been  selected,  first,  because  we  have, 
through  the  aid  of  many  intelligent  men,  the  means  of  obtaining  the 
most  accurate  information  respecting  it;  and  secondly, because, among 
the  many  inconsistent  positions  of  our  opponents,  it  has  been  main- 
tained, that  a  system  calculated  to  increase  the  cost  ol  shipping  and 
to  destroy  its  occupation,  has  proved  beneficial.  The  address  of  the 
Tariff  Convention  before  us,  declares,  "  That  among  the  good  effects 
of  the  '  American  System,'  is  that  of  its  having  caused  commerce 
and  navigation  to  flourish  beyond  all  expectation;"  which  asser- 
tion as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  is  grossly  erroneous.  3d.  We 
have  chosen  this  kind  of  domestic  manufacture,  which  employs 
an  immense  number  of  manufacturers,  mechanics,  and  labourers,  to 
show,  that,  while  the  high  duty  system  gives  additional  occupation 
to  one  class  of  men,  who  would  be  as  well  or  belter  employed  with- 
out these  duties,  it  excludes  another  class  from  an  occupation  high- 
ly beneficial  to  the  country  ; — a  class  who  have  never  asked  nor  re- 
ceived any  governmental  bounties,  nor  any  other  protection  than 
what  it  was  for  the  interest,  not  of  the  merchants  only  but  of  the  na- 
tion, to  confer.  On  this  point  we  arc  sustained  by  an  authority  our 
opponents  will  be  the  last  to  undervalue  or  to  deny.  "  Much  has 
been  said  of  the  protection  which  the  navigation  of  the  country  has 
received,"  observed  Mr.  Webster,  in  his  defence  of  the  Tariff  act  of 
1828,  "  from  the  discriminating  duties  on  tonnage  and  the  exclusive 
enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade.  In  my  opinion,  neither  of  these 
measures  has  materially  sustained  the  shipping  interest  of  the  United 
States.  I  do  not  concur  in  the  sentiments  on  that  point,  quoted 
from  Doctor  Seybert's  Statistical  work.  Doctor  Scybert  was  an 
intelligent  and  worthy  man,  and  compiled  a  valuable  book;  but  ho 
was  engaged  in  public  life  at  a  time,  when  it  was  more  fashionable 
than  it  has  since  become,  to  ascribe  efficacy  to  discriminating  duties. 
The  shipping  interest  in  this  country  has  made  its  way  by  its  own 
enterprise.  By  its  own  vigorous  exertion,  it  spread  itself  over  the 
seas,  and  by  the  same  exertion  it  still  holds  its  place  there.  It  seems 
idle  to  talk  of  the  benefit  and  advantage  of  discriminating  duties, 
when  they  operate  against  us  on  one  side  of  the  ocean,  quite  as 
much  as  they  operate  for  us  on  the  other." 

This  is  unquestionably  a  correct  view  of  the  discriminating  du- 
ties, formerly  existing  in  favor  of  American  shipping.  They  wero 
not  granted  to  secure  a  monopoly  to  our  own  navigation,  and  thus 
to  compel  the  nation  to  pay  an  extra  price  for  the  transportation  of 
our  commodities,  but  upon  political  grounds,  and  as  a  countervail- 
ing measure  to  meet  similar  acts  on  the  part  of  foreign  nations; 
and,  at  the  same  time,  as  a  means  of  compelling  them  to  rescind 
their  restrictions  on  our  shipping.  When  this  was  effected,  tho 
discriminating  duties  on  our  side  were  repealed.     The  object,  then, 


of  these  laws  has  been,  to  liberate  commerce  and  navigation  from 
the  restraints  imposed  upon  them  by  foreign  nations,  and  thus  to 
bring  foreign  ships  into  competition  with  our  own.  And  such  have 
been  the  effects  of  those  measures. 

We  beg  to  call  the  attention  of  our  readers  to  this  distinction  be- 
tween the  principle  on  which  the  discriminating  duties  were  passed, 
and  that  on  which  the  prohibitory  duties  are  founded.  The  ob- 
ject of  the  first,  was,  to  restore  commerce  and  navigation  to  freedom, 
and  to  place  foreign  shipping,  and  foreign  capital  employed  in 
commerce,  on  a  footing  with  our  own,  that  the  nation  might  be 
benefited  by  the  competition.  The  object  of  the  exclusive  and 
high  duty  system,  is,  to  prevent  foreign  goods  from  coming  into  the 
country,  and  thus  to  deprive  the  nation  of  the  benefit  of  foreign 
competition. 

We  repeat,  then,  that  the  discriminating  duties  on  foreign  ship- 
ping, were  not  established  with  a  view  to  ihe  protection  of  the 
American  ship-owners,  but  merely  as  a  retaliatory  measure,  to 
compel  other  nations  to  place  our  shipping  on  a  footing  with  their 
own.  On  this  being  done,  as  is  well  known  to  every  intelligent 
merchant,  our  government  has,  in  every  instance,  repealed  the 
discriminating  duties,  and  thus  enabled  the  English,  the  French, 
and  other  rival  commercial  nations,  to  enter  into  successful  compe- 
tition with  our  own  ship-owners  ; — the  effect  of  which  has  been  to 
reduce  the  rates  of  freight  below  what  they  otherwise  would  have 
been.  In  this  assertion  we  are  again  supported  by  Mr.  Webster, 
in  the  speech  from  which  we  have  quoted,  and  in  still  stronger 
terms  in  his  speech  of  1824,  from  which  we  make  the  following 
extract : — "  1  would  again  urgently  solicit  its  [the  committee's]  at- 
tention to  the  consideration  of  that  interest.  We  are  told  that 
government  has  protected  it  by  discriminating  duties,  and  by  an 
exclusive  right  to  the  coasting  trade.  But  it  would  retain  the  coast- 
ing trade  by  its  own  natural  efforts,  and  in  like  manner,  and  with 
more  certainly,  than  it  now  retains  any  portion  of  the  foreign  trade. 
The  discriminating  duties  are  now  abolished,  and  while  they  exist- 
ed, they  were  not/wig  more  than  countervailing  measures;  not  so 
much  designed  to  give  our  navigation  advantages  over  that  of 
other  natiom,  as  to  put  it  upon  an  equality;  and  we  have,  accord- 
ingly, abolished  ours,  xvhen  they  have  been  willing  to  abolish 
theirs." 

We  have  thought  it  necessary  to  deviate  from  the  subject  more 
Immediately  under  discussion,  because  one  of  the  points  most  relied 
upon  by  our  opponents,  as  affording  a  justification  of  the  protecting 
taxes  in  favor  of  manufactures,  has  been  this  precedent  of  discrim- 
inating duties  on  tonnage  and  merchandize.  The  New  York  Ta- 
riff Address  refers  to  the  subject  in  the  following  terms  : — "  On  what 
foundation  does  the  whole  system  of  the  coasting  trade  stand  ?     The 


American  ship-builder  and  ship-owner  has  enjoyed,  from  the  first, 
and  we  think  properly,  not  only  protection  in  that  trade,  but  the 
monopoly  of  it.  He  shuts  out  all  foreign  competition,  and  lie  does 
so  on  the  ground  that  the  public  good  is  promoted  by  giving  him 
this  advantage.  We  think  he  is  right  in  asking  this,  and  the  gov- 
ernment right  in  granting  it.  Yet  this  is  not  free  trade  ;  it  is  prefer- 
ence ;  it  is  protection,  and  protection  of  a  manufacture  under  the 
power  to  regulate  trade."  Again — "  The  United  States  could  not 
share  their  coasting  trade  with  England  without  disadvantage.  The 
most  extravagant  advocates  of  free  trade,  it  is  believed,  have  never 
yet  dreamed  of  sharing  our  river  trade  with  foreigners.'  To  throw 
open  the  Ohio  and  Mississippi,  the  Hudson  and  the  Delaware,  to 
British,  French,  and  Dutch  navigation,  would  be  of  no  advantage 
to  our  own."  Again — speaking  of  the  exercise  of  the  protecting 
principle,  the  Address  proceeds; — "It  is  not  new;  the  principle 
was  applied,  as  we  have  already  stated,  to  our  navigation,  from  the 
establishment  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  prohibiting  the  foreign 
shipping  from  the  coasting  trade  altogether,  and  imposing  a  high 
discriminating  duty  on  foreign  tonnage." 

With  regard  to  the  protection  to  the  shipping  engaged  in  the 
foreign  commerce  of  the  country,  we  have  shown,  on  the  authority 
of  Mr.  Webster,  that  it  never  received  any  other  legislative  aid  than 
to  place  it  on  the  same  footing  with  foreign  tonnage,  by  imposing 
such  taxes  on  foreign  ships,  as  our  own  vessels  were  compelled  to 
pay  in  foreign  ports.  This  has  not  given  the  ship-owner  any  privi- 
leges at  the  expense  of  the  nation,  nor  did  it  impose  any  restriction 
on  commerce.  It  merely  met  taxation  by  taxation — not  to  restrict 
and  restrain  trade,  but  to  make  it  more  free ;  and  such  has  been  the 
effect  of  these  countervailing  duties. 

So  in  respect  to  the  coasting  trade ;  nothing  can  be  more  unrea- 
sonable and  absurd  than  to  pretend  that  this  branch  of  industry  does 
at  this  time,  or  has  ;it  any  former  period,  derived  any  benefit  from 
protecting  laws.  The  coasting  trade  may  be  considered  as  part  of 
the  internal  trade  of  the  country,  and  is  so  viewed  by  the  authors 
of  the  Address,  when  they  speak  of  the  navigation  of  our  rivers, 
which  they  consider  as  secured  to  us  by  the  American  System.  Is 
there  any  man  of  reflection,  however  inexperienced  in  such  matters, 
who  can  for  a  moment  believe  that  any  part  of  our  coasting  trade 
would  be  carried  on  by  foreigners,  were  there  no  laws  to  exclude 
them  from  it?  It  might  with  equal  reason  be  alleged  that  the  stage 
coaches  and  baggage  waggons  owe  their  occupation  and  prosperity 
to  the  protection  secured  to  them  by  the  "  American  System." 
The  coasting  trade  of  every  commercial  country,  even  in  time  of 
war,  must  be  carried  on  by  its  own  citizens ;  and  if  foreigners 
were  at  any  time  to  believe  that  our  coasting  trade  could  be  man- 
aged with  greater  advantage  by  themselves  than  our  own  citizens, 


6 

they  would,  were  they  to  engage  in  it,  become  part  of  the  nation ; — 
and  there  is  no  law  to  prevent  their  doing  this. — Let  us,  however, 
refer  again  to  Mr.  Webster,  who  has  treated  this  subject  with  that 
clearness  and  ability  characteristic  of  all  his  reasonings,  unless 
when  enlisted  in  a  cause  where  no  human  ingenuity  can  find  ma- 
terials to  frame  an  argument  that  does  not,  like  the  reasonings  in 
the  New  York  Convention  Address,  rely  on  false  assumptions  for 
its  support.  "  Still  less  reason  is  there  for  the  idea,"  says  Mr. 
Webster,  in  his  speech  in  1S28,  "  that  our  ship-owners  held  the  ex- 
clusive enjoyment  of  the  coasting  trade,  only  by  virtue  of  the  law 
which  secures  it  to  their  exclusive  employment.  Look  at  the  rate 
of  freights  ;  look  at  the  manner  in  which  this  coasting  trade  is  con- 
ducted by  our  own  vessels,  and  the  competition  which  subsists  be- 
tween them.  In  a  majority  of  instances,  probably,  these  vessels  are 
owned  in  whole,  or  in  part,  by  those  who  navigate  them.  These 
owners  are  at  home  at  one  end  of  the  voyage  ;  and  repairs  and 
supplies  are  thus  obtained  in  the  cheapest  and  most  economical  man- 
ner. No  foreign  vessel  would  be  able  to  partake  in  this  trade, 
even  by  the  aid  of  preferences  and  bounties." 

We  now  proceed  to  lay  before  our  readers  a  statement  furnished 
by  an  experienced  merchant  and  ship-owner,  who,  by  his  intelli- 
gence and  enterprise,  has  been  among  the  most  efficient  promoters 
of  those  great  improvements  in  ship-building,  and  the  skilful  and 
economical  management  of  ships,  which  have  enabled  our  merchants 
to  pursue  a  successful  competition  with  our  more  wealthy  com- 
mercial rivals ; — and  that,  too,  though  burdened  with  taxation  and 
restrictions  greater  than  are  imposed  on  the  shipping  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, and  which,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show,  have  reduced  the  amount 
of  our  import  and  export  trade  below  what  it  formerly  was,  with  half 
our  present  wealth  and  population — and  infinitely  below  what  it 
would  have  been  had  the  nation  never  departed  from  that  just  and 
wise  policy,  established  and  acted  upon  under  those  administrations 
of  our  government,  the  most  distinguished  for  wisdom  and  patriotism. 

There  is,  indeed,  no  class  of  men  in  this  country,  whose  interests 
have  been  so  little  cherished,  so  much  disregarded,  and  so  unjustly 
sacrificed,  since  18 IG,  as  those  of  the  merchants  and  ship-owners, 
who,  however,  ask  for  no  favors.  To  use  the  expressive  language 
of  Mr.  Webster,  "  the  shipping  interest  of  this  country  requires  only 
an  open  field  and  fair  chance.  Every  thing  else  it  will  do  for  it- 
self; but,  it  has  not  a  fair  chance,  while  it  is  so  severely  taxed,  in 
whatever  enters  into  the  necessary  expense  of  building  and  equip- 
ment. In  this  respect  its  rivals  have  advantages  which  may,  in  the 
end,  prove  to  be  decisive  against  us."  Nothing  can  be  more  just 
than  these  remarks  of  Mr.  Webster.  The  merchants  and  ship- 
owners never  have  asked  any  other  favor  from  government  than 
to  be  left  to  a  free  competition  with  all  the  world  j  and  this  is  all 


they  now  desire.  The  sugar  planter,  iron  master,  and  cotton 
;and  woollen  manufacturers,  want  to  be  compensated,  and  are  com- 
pensated, by  a  burdensome  taxation  on  their  fellow-citizens,  because 
ihey  eviploy  domestic  labor  and  capital.  But  the  commerce  and 
navigation  of  the  country  employ  twenty  times  the  amount  of  do- 
mestic labor  and  capital  that  the  favored  manufactures  do ;  yet, 
instead  of  receiving  or  asking  for  bounties,  they  are  burdened,  enor- 
mously burdened,  with  taxes  and  restrictions.  Is  this  conformable 
to  the  spirit  of  our  Constitution,  which  was  intended  t  o  guarantee 
equal  rights  and  privileges  to  all  ? 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  the  schedule  of  the  materials  used  in 
the  construction  of  a  first-rate  ship  of  418  tons,  with  the  amount  of 
duties  levied  on  them  by  the  existing  Tariff.  It  is  not  a  conjectural 
estimate,  but  an  accurate  statement  of  the  articles  actually  consumed 
in  the  building  of  a  particular  ship,  superintended  and  owned  by  the 
'gentleman  from  whom  we  received  the  information. 

Tons.  cw(,    qr.    lbs. 

Baltic  Iron,  11     12    2    24  at  822,40        ....  $260,64 

English  do.  5     10     1     12  at  $37 215.2G 

Iron  chains  for  sheets,  ties.  &c.  956  lbs.  at  3  cts.,  28,68 
Iron  for  trusses,  800  lbs.  at  1  ct.  8,00 

$36,68 

Chain  cables,  20340  lbs.  at  3  cts -        610,20 

Copper  bolts,  5831  lbs.  at  4  cts.  $233,24 

Composition  spikes,  &c.  3178  lbs.  at  94.  £119  3s.  6rf.  sterling  }       ,,r  cj 
Duty  25  per  cent,  ad  valorem  \  ' 

Anchors,  4916  lbs.  at  2  cts.        - 98,32 

Lead,  1455  lbs.   at  3  cts. -        -  43,65 

Hemp*  104  tons,  at  $60 630,00 

Sail  cloth,  78  pieces,  at  $3,27      -        -     $255,06 
Half  duck,  9  pieces,  at  $3,23        -  29,07 

Ravens  duck,  27  pieces,  at  $3,07        -  82,89 


White  lead,  709  lbs.  at  4  cts.  -        -     28,36 

JLinseed  oil,  35  gallons,  at  25  cts.  -             8,75 

Salt,  40  hhds.  at  $2,20        -        -  .      88,00 

JShip  chandlery,  &c.     -            -  75,80 


Equal  to  $6,80  per  ton 


$307,02 


$200,91 
92841,43 


It  may  perhaps  be  alleged,  by  those  who  are  disposed  to  deny 
the  accuracy  of  our  statements,  that  we  have  selected  an  extreme 
case.  But  such  is  not  the  fact,  as  we  have  other  statements,  from 
experienced  ship-owners  and  ship-builders,  which  concur,  in  their  re- 
sults, with  the  one  we  have  adduced.     It  is  true,  however,  that  in 

"  If  foreign  cordage  had  been  used,  as  is  often  the  case,jthis  item  should  be 
IS  tonsof  cordage,  at  4  cts.  per  lb.,  $1075, "JO. 


8 


vessels  of  an  inferior  quality,  a  smaller  quantity  of  materials  is  used, 
which  would  lower  the  estimate.  But,  on  the.  other  hand,  the 
smaller  vessels  use  a  larger  proportion  of  the  taxed  materials.  A 
vessel,  for  instance,  of  200  tons  would  require  5-Sths  as  much  iron, 
copper,  cordage,  canvass,  &.C.,  as  one  of  400  tons  ;  and  as  you 
descend  in  size,  the  proportion  will  he  still  greater. 

This  is  a  heavy  tax  on  the  first  cost  of  so  useful  and  important  a 
manufacture.  But  the  evil  does  not  end  here ;  since  the  annual 
depreciation  of  the  equipment  of  a  ship,  requiring  constant  repairs, 
imposes  an  annual  tax,  to  which  must  be  added  the  interest  of  the 
capital  involved  in  this  taxation,  and  the  premium  of  insurance. 
We  will,  then,  take  the  average  duration  of  a  ship  at  twelve  years, 
and  compute  the  amount,  to  the  end  of  that  period,  of  the  duties 
actually  paid  on  the  materials  used  in  her  construction,  together 
with  the  interest  and  premium  of  insurance  on  the  same,  and  the 
annual  amount  of  duties  paid  on  the  articles  used  to  keep  her  in 
common  sailing  condition.  This  will  exhibit  a  view  of  the  aggre- 
gate taxation  imposed  on  our  navigation  by  the  Tariff  law  of  1828. 

Duties  on  first  cost,  per  statement,        -----         2841,43 
Premium  of  insurance,  at  5  per  cent.  -  142,0? 

Interest  for  1  year,  at  0  per  cent.  -----  170,48 

Cost  at  the  end  of  1  year,  $3153,98 

Premium  of  insurance,  at  5  per  tent,  on  original  sum,  -        142,07 

Interest  for  1  year,  at  6  per  cent,  on  $3153,08,  -        -  189,24 

Cost  at  end  of  2  years,        $3485,26 
Premium  for  1  year  as  above,        ------  142,07 

Interest  for  I  year  on  $3485,29,  at  6  per  cent.  -        -  209,12 

Cost  at  end  of  3  years,        $3836,48 

Following  up  this  calculation  to  the  end  of  twelve  years,  the 
whole  amount  paid  will  be  $8114,21. 

In  estimating  the  anual  tax,  we  assume  that  the  sails  of  a 
ship  must  be  replaced  every  three  years,  and  as  the  duties 
on  the  sail-cloth  amount  to  $167,02,  one  third  will  be  $122,34 

Duties  on  annual  consumption  of  2  tons  of  hemp,  at  $60,     -  120,00 

Do.  on  paints,  oil,  iron,  chandlery,  &c.  -  50 

End  of  1  year,  $292,34 

Premium  of  insurance,  at  5  per  cent.        -----  *£,62 

Interest  on  $292,34,  1  year,  at  6  per  cent.             ...  17,54 

Duties  on  consumption,  1  year,       ------  292,34 

End  of  2  years,         -  $616,84 

Premium  of  insurance,  5  per  cent,  on  original  sum,  -  -  14,62 

Interest  on  $619,84  1  year,  at  (iper  cent.  •  -        -      37,01 

$698,47 


Amount  brought  forward,        - 698,47 

Duties  on  consumption  1  year,  ------       292^34 

End  of  three  years,         -        -     $960,81 

The  whole  amount,  therefore,  at  the  end  of  twelve  years,  will  he 
found  to  be  $ 4858,  27.  We  have  shown  the  duties  on  the  materials 
used  in  the  construction  of  a  first-rate  ship  of  418  tons,  to  be  $2841,43; 
and  that  the  interest  and  premium  of  insurance  on  this  sum  for 
twelve  years,  being  the  average  duration  of  a  first-rate  ship,  carry  up 
the  whole  sum  to  $8114,21.  But,  as  a  portion  of  the  shipping  has 
a  smaller  quantity  of  the  taxed  materials,  and  as  some  of  the  duties  in 
the  Tariff  may  not  operate  so  heavily  as  the  rates  standing  against 
the  several  items  here  exhibited,  we  will  take  $ths  of  $8114,21  for 
an  average,  equal  to  $6085,00 

The  wear  must  be  the  same  on  an  ordinary  vessel,  as  on 

one  of  the  first  class.    Therefore  we  take  the  full  sum,        $4,858,27 


$10,943,03 


A  tax  of  $10,943,93  upon  a  single  ship,  and  for  twelve  years  on- 
ly, is,  it  will  be  admitted,  an  exorbitant  sum  ;  and  probably  there  are 
few,  even  among  the  ship-owners,  who  are  sensible  of  its  magnitude, 
so  accustomed  has  this  class  of  men  become  to  the  existing  system 
of  taxation  ;  and  yet  we  are  convinced  that  the  sum  estimated  falls 
short  of  the  taxes  actually  levied  on  this  great  branch  of  industry ; 
an  interest,  which,  as  Mr.  Webster  remarked,  in  his  speech  of  1S28, 
"  lies  at  the  very  foundation  both  of  our  commercial  prosperity  and 
our  naval  achievement." 

The  sum  of  $10,943,93,  being  the  amount  of  taxes  on  418  tons, 
a  little  exceeds  26  dollars  per  ton,  and  applied  to  the  whole  ton- 
nage of  the  United  States,  which,  according  to  the  last  returns,  was 
1,260,797  tons,  amounts  to  $33,009,746, — as  a  direct  tax  imposed 
on  our  shipping,  in  the  space  of  twelve  years.  Can  it  be  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  any  one,  to  find,  that  our  navigation  has  fallen  below 
the  quantity  we  possessed  with  half  our  present  population  and  less  than 
halfour  wealth,  oppressed  as  it  is  by  such  taxation,  and  suffering  by 
the  diminished  occupation,  consequent  upon  a  reduction  of  imports 
and  exports,  caused  by  the  prohibitory  system  ? 

The  two  great  commercial  nations,  which  at  present  engross  the 
carrying  trade  of  the  world,  even  to  a  greater  extent  than  (hiring  the 
war  in  Europe,  are  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  ;  and  our 
ship-owners  have  for  some  years  felt  the  effects  of  British  competition 
very  severely.  For,  the  moment  freights  advance  to  a  rate  which 
will  give  the  American  ship-owner  a  fair  compensation  for  his  cap- 
ital and  labor,  our  ports  are  crowded  with  British  shipping,  and  even 
a  moderate  addition  to  our  own  shipping  has  a  most  material  bear* 


10 

ing  on   freights.     This,  however,  the  American  ship-owner  could 
well  endure,  were  he   as  lightly  taxed  as  the  British  ship-owner. 

Let  us  now  endeavor  to  make  an  estimate  of  duties  paid  on  the 
materials  used  in  the  construction  of  a  ship  in  England.  The 
quantity  of  iron  used  in  a  ship  of  the  class  we  have  described,  inclu- 
ding cables,  anchors,  &c,  is  about  30  tons.  In  this  country,  owing 
to  the  excessive  duties  on  all  sorts  of  British  iron,  a  smaller  propor- 
tion of  that  is  used  than  of  other  kinds.  But  the  English  iron  is  of 
all  qualities,  and,  we  are  informed,  is  used  almost  exclusively,  in 
Great  Britain,  in  the  construction  of  ships.  We  will  however  allow 
one  third,  or  10  tons,  of  foreign  iron,  on  which  the  duty  in  Great 
Britain  is  30*.  sterling  per  ton, — or  about  $70,00 

10£  tons  of  hemp,  duty  4s.  Sd.  per  cwt.  equal 

to  $22  per  ton,  $231,00 

$301,00 

These  are  the  only  materials  used  in  the  construction  of  a  ship, 
in  England,  which  are  taxed  by  duties.  Thus,  while  an  American 
ship-owner  pays  a  tax  of  $2841,43,  according  to  one  estimate,  or 
$2131,  according  to  another,  a  British  ship-owner,  with  whom  we 
are  in  close  competition  for  the  transportation  of  our  own  produce, 
is  chargeable  only  with  the  sum  of  $301. 

Again  ; — in  regard  to  ship-owners  in  the  British  colonies  of  Nova- 
Scotia,  Canada,  &c,  our  ship-owners  are  placed  at  a  still  greater 
disadvantage  ;  for,  while  timber,  spars,  and  other  materials  of  wood, 
are  cheaper,  the  taxes  on  foreign  materials  are,  on  the  average, 
lower  than  in  Great  Britain.  For  instance,  the  duty  on  hemp  is 
only  $7,50  per  ton,  and  free  if  imported  from  Great  Britain  ;  on 
foreign  iron  $3,50  per  ton,  and  on  British  about  $1  per  ton  ;  while 
sailcloth,  lead,  copper,  composition  bolts,  and  other  materials,  pay 
only  2 J  per  cent.;  so  that  the  whole  amount  of  duties  on  the  ma- 
terials used  in  the  construction  and  equipment  of  a  ship  of  418  tonsy 
in  the  British  colonies,  cannot  exceed  $250. 

What  has  been  the  effect  of  this  impolitic  taxation  on  our  navi- 
gation ?  Why,  as  we  have  before  remarked,  it  has  reduced  our 
own  tonnage  below  what  it  formerly  was  ;  and  in  the  next  place,  it 
has  greatly  increased  the  foreign  shipping  employed  in  transporting 
the  exports,  and,  consequently,  the  imports  of  this  country.  On 
turning  to  Watterston  and  Vanzandt's  Tables,  and  going  back  as  far 
as  they  extend,  we  find  the  foreign  tonnage  which  departed  from 
the  United  States,  in  1821,  was  83,073  tons.  It  went  on  increas- 
ing, and  in  1828  there  was  a  considerable  addition.  The  average 
of  the  last  three  years,  inclusive  of  1830,  has  been  139,157  tons. 
The  quantity  this  year,  as  we  have  reason  to  believe,  will  be  still 
greater,  to  the  manifest  disadvantage  of  the  American  ship-owner. 

No  man,  who  has  the  good  of  his  country  at  heart,  and  who 


11 

knows  how  intimately  the  welfare  and  safety  of  the  nation  arc  con- 
nected with  a  prosperous  commerce  and  an  extensive  commercial 
navy,  can  contemplate  the  comparative  disadvantages  our  shipping 
labors  under,  without  a  sentiment  of  regret,  if  not  of  indignation. 
And  for  what  purpose  are  these  taxes  imposed  ?  Why,  that  a 
small  and  favored  class  of  individuals  may  pursue  particular 
tranches  of  business,  which,  however  profitable  to  themr  are  bur- 
•densome  to  the  great  mass  of  the  nation. 

We  will  now  avail  ourselves,  in  the  discussion  of  this  sub- 
ject, of  some  further  extracts  from  Mr.  Webster's  speeches  of  1824 
and  1828,  in  the  hope  of  making  a  deeper  impression  on  the  minds 
of  our  readers,  than  any  language  of  our  own  can  produce.  Mr. 
Webster,  in  arguing  against  increased  duties  on  hemp,  in  1828, 
says : — "  1  intreat  the  Senate  to  examine  and  weigh  this  subject, 
and  not  to  go  on,  blindly,  to  unknown  consequences.  The  English 
ship-owner  is  carefully  regarded  by  his  government,  and  aided 
and  succored,  whenever  and  wherever  necessary,  by  a  sharp- 
sighted  policy.  Both  he  and  the  American  ship-owner  obtain 
their  hemp  from  Russia.  But  observe  the  difference.  The  duty 
on  hemp  in  England  is  but  $21  ;  here,  it  is  proposed  to  make 
it  $60,  notwithstanding  its  cost  here  is  necessarily  enhanced  by  an 
additional  freight,  proportioned  to  a  voyage,  longer  than  that  which 
brings  it  to  the  English  consumer  by  the  whole  breadth  of  the  At- 
lantic. Sir,  I  wish  to  invoke  the  Senate's  attention  earnestly  to 
this  subject ;  I  would  awaken  the  regards  of  the  whole  government, 
more  and  more,  not  only  on  this  but  on  all  occasions,  to  this  great 
national  interest ;  an  interest  which  lies  at  the  very  foundation  both 
of  our  commercial  prosperity  and  our  naval  achievement." 

We  will  next  furnish  some  extracts  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech 
of  1824;  and  his  remarks  upon  this  subject  are  as  true  and  appro- 
priate now,  as  they  were  then, — but  with  this  difference,  that,  accord- 
ing to  his  estimate,  the  taxes  on  the  materials  of  a  ship  of  418  tons 
(when  he,  in  1824,  deprecated  any  further  addition  to  those  taxes) 
amounted  to  $1229,  whereas  we  have  shown,  that,  under  the  ex- 
isting Tariff,  they  amount,  on  a  first-rate  ship  of  that  class  to 
$2841,43. 

"  And  first,  sir,  as  to  our  own  foreign  trade.  Mr.  Speaker  has  sta- 
ted that  there  has  been  a  considerable  falling  off  in  the  tonnage  em- 
ployed in  that  trade.  This  is  true,  lamentably  true.  In  my  opinion, 
it  is  one  of  those  occurrences  which  ought  to  arrest  our  immediate, 
our  deep,  our  most  earnest  attention.  What  does  this  bill  propose 
for  its  relief?  Sir,  it  proposes  nothing  but  new  burdens.  It  propo- 
ses to  diminish  its  employment,  and  it  proposes,  at  the  same  time, 
to  augment  its  expense,  by  subjecting  it  to  heavier  taxation.  Sir, 
there  is  no  interest,  in  regard  to  which  a  stronger  case  for  protec- 
tion can  be  made  out,  than  the  navigating  interest.     Whether  we 


12 

look  at  its  present  condition,  which  is  admitted  to  be  depressed  ;  the* 
number  of  persons  connected  with  it,  and  dependent  upon  it  for 
their  daily  bread  ;  or  its  importance  to  the  country  in  a  political  point 
of  view, — it  has  claims  upon  our  attention  which  cannot  be  exceed- 
ed. But  what  do  we  propose  to  do  for  it  ?  I  repeat,  sir,  simply  to 
burden  and  to  tax  it.  By  a  statement  which  I  have  already  submit- 
ted to  the  committee,  it  appears  that  the  shipping  interest  pays,  an- 
nually, more  than  half  a  million  of  dollars  in  duties  on  articles  used 
in  the  construction  of  ships.  We  propose  to  add  nearly,  or  quite,  50 
per  cent,  to  this  amount,  at  the  very  moment  that  we  bring  forth  the 
languishing  state  of  this  interest  as  a  proof  of  national  distress. 
Let  it  be  remembered  that  our  shipping  employed  in  foreign  com- 
merce has,  at  this  moment,  not  the  shadow  of  government  protec- 
tion. It  goes  abroad  upon  the  wide  sea  to  make  its  own  way,  and 
earn  its  own  bread,  in  a  professed  competition  with  the  whole  world. 
Its  resources  are  its  own  frugality,  its  own  skill,  its  own  enterprise- 
It  hopes  to  succeed,  if  it  shall  succeed  at  all,  not  by  extraordinary 
aid  of  government,  but  by  patience,  vigilance,  and  toil.  This  right 
arm  of  the  nation's  safety  strengthens  its  own  muscle  by  its  own 
efforts,  and  by  unwearied  exertion  in  its  own  defence  becomes  strong 
for  the  defence  of  the  country. 

"  No  one  acquainted  with  this  interest,  can  deny  that  its  situation,  at 
this  moment,  is  extremely  critical.  We  have  left  it  hitherto  to  maintain 
itself  or  perish  ;  to  swim  if  it  can,  and  to  sink  if  it  cannot.  But  at  this 
moment  of  its  apparent  struggle,  can  we  as  men,  can  we  as  patri- 
ots, add  another  stone  to  the  weight  that  threatens  to  carry  it  down  ? 
Sir,  there  is  a  limit  to  human  power,  and  to  human  effort.  I  know 
the  commercial  marine  of  this  country  can  do  almost  every  thing, 
and  bear  almost  every  thing.  Yet  some  things  are  impossible  to  be 
done,  and  some  burdens  may  be  impossible  to  be  borne  ;  and  as  it 
was  the  last  ounce  that  broke  the  back  of  the  camel,  so  the  last 
tax,  although  it  were  even  a  small  one,  may  be  decisive  as  to  the 
power  of  our  marine  to  sustain  the  conflict  in  which  it  is  now  en- 
gaged, with  all  the  commercial  nations  of  the  globe. 

"  Again,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  failures  and  bankruptcies  which  have 
taken  place  in  our  large  cities,  have  been  mentioned  as  proving  the 
little  success  attending  commerce,  and  its  general  decline.  But  this 
bill  has  no  balm  for  these  wounds.  It  is  very  remarkable,  that,  when 
the  losses  and  disasters  of  certain  manufacturers,  those  of  iron,  for 
instance,  are  mentioned,  it  is  done  for  the  purpose  of  invoking  aid 
for  the  distressed.  Not  so  with  the  losses  and  disasters  of  com- 
merce. These  last  are  narrated,  and  not  unfrequently  much  exag- 
gerated, to  prove  the  ruinous  nature  of  the  employment,  and  to  show 
that  it  ought  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  capital  engaged  in  it  turned  to 
other  objects. 


13 

"It  has  often  been  said,  sir,  that  our  manufactures  have  to  con-' 
tend,  not  only  against  the  natural  advantages  of  those  who  produce^ 
similar  articles  in  foreign  countries,  but  also  against  the  action  of 
foreign  governments,  who  have  great  political  interests  in  aiding 
their  own  manufactures  to  suppress  ours.  But  have  not  those  gov- 
ernments as  great  an  interest  to  cripple  our  marine,  ly  presenting 
the  growth  of  our  commerce  and  navigation?  What  is  it  that  make* 
us  the  object  of  the  highest  respect,  or  the  most  suspicious  jealousy, 
to  foreign  states  ?  What  is  it  that  must  enable  us  to  take  high  rela- 
tive rank  among  the  nations  ?  I  need  not  say  that  this  results,  more 
than  from  any  thing  else,  from  that  quantity  of  military  power  which 
we  can  cause  to  be  water-borne,  and  of  that  extent  ol  commerce 
which  we  are  able  to  maintain  throughout  the  world." 

We  know  it  will  be  said,  that  those  ruinous  effects  of  taxation  and 
restraint  upon  commerce  and  navigation,  which  Mr.  Webster  alleges" 
to  have  existed  in  1S24,  and  which  he  maintains  must  continue  to 
exist  while  commerce  and  navigation  are  taxed  and  restricted,  are 
but  imaginary,  and  exist  only  in  the  fancies  *  of  the  deluded  follow- 
ers of  Smith,  Say,   Franklin,  Raguet,  JM'Culloch,   and  other  vis- 

♦  The  New  York  Tariff  Convention  speaks  of  the  doctrines  of  free  trade  as 
visionary  and  impracticable.  "  The  freest  of  free  trade  is,  after  all,  but  a  char- 
tered libertine,"  says  the  Address,  and,  to  support  this  singular  definition  of  free 
trade,  the  following  characteristic  arguments  are  adduced.  "  JValions  arc  adver- 
sary to  each  other,  their  commercial  intercourse  is  regulated  by  treaties,  always 
made  with  a  view  to  relative  advantages,  and  to  provide  for  those  hostilities  which 
are  of  perpetual  recurrence."  That  the  commercial  and  political  intercourse  be- 
tween nations  is  regulated  upon  the  principles  of  mutual  benefit,  is  a  truism, 
which  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  affirm;  yet  it  appears  to  be  contradicted  by  the 
New  York  Address,  when  it  declares,  that  "  nations  arc  adversary  to  each  other, 
and  that  one  object  of  treaties  between  nations  is  to  provide  for  hostilities  ."  and 
again,  when  it  is  maintained,  "that  there  is  no  free  trade — there  never  was, 
there  never  can  be.  It  would  contravene  the  ways  of  Providence,  which  dis- 
tributes mankind  into  different  communities,  separated  originally  by  confusion 
of  tongues,  and  prevented  from  all  rushing  into  the  most  favoured  latitudes, 
by  local  attachments,  and  foreign  antipathies,  which  are  the  germs  of  national 
preservation,  by  means  of  national  emulation!" 

Now,  though  we  are  unwilling  to  adopt  the  definition  of  free  trade,  as  laid 
down  in  the  Address  of  the  New  York  Convention,  we  are  willing  to  admit 
their  exposition  of  their  own  doctrines  of  restriction  ;  and  we  beg  leave  to  call 
the  attention  of  our  readers  to  the  immoral  principles  which  are  here  inculcated. 
They  affirm,  that  nations  are  adversary  to  each  other,  and  that  one  of  the  princi- 
pal objects  of  having  any  intercourse  with  each  other  is,  to  provide  for  hostilities  ; 
2d.  that  Providence  has  distributed  mankind  into  different  communities,  and 
planted  in  their  hearts  antipathies  against  foreign  communities,  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  a  free  intercourse  with  each  other. 

That  these  are  among  the  leading  principles  of  the  advocates  of  the  exclusive 
system,  is  notorious  to  every  one,  familiar  with  the  arguments  commonly  urged 
in  its  defence.  They  rest  on  the  anti-social  and  unphilosophical  maxim,  which 
formerly  prevailed  among  monarchs  and  statesmen  of  tlie  old  world  ;  viz.  that  the 
prosperity  and  happiness  of  a  country  depend  on  the  poverty  and  misery  of  foreign 
nations,  who,  from  proximity  and  other  causes,  are  most  likely  to  ha\e  intercourse 
with  that  country.  We  had  supposed,  however,  that  such  absurd  and  detestable 
notions  had  long  since  been  banished  from  every  just  and  liberal  mind  ;  especially 


14 

ionary  writers  of  similar  character  of  mind  ;  or,  to  quote  the  Boston 
Tariff  resolutions  of  1831,  in  allusion  to  the  advocates  of  free  trade* 
**  of  those  who  rely  for  guidance  upon  the  treacherous  light  of  a  daz- 
zling theory." 

among  a  people  who  are  constantly  proclaiming  the  superiority  of  their  govern1 
ment  and  laws,  over  those  of  the  old  world.  Such  absurd  opinions  and  un* 
christian  feelings  were  once  common,  even  among  the  refined  and  civilized  na- 
tions of  Europe.  Bat  at  no  period,  within  two  or  three  generations  at  least, 
would  an  individual  of  any  eminence  in  those  countries  have  risked  his  reputa- 
tation  as  a  statesman,  or  any  writer  his  character  as  a  moralist  and  Christian, 
bv  recommending  a  great  and  enlightened  nation  to  found  its  political  and  com- 
mercial relations  on  the  impolitic  and  impious  doctrines  advocated  by  the  New 
York  Tariff  Address. 

Let  us  now  contrast  the  mean  and  illiberal  sentiments  and  doctrines,  inculca- 
ted by  the  advocates  of  monopolies  and  restrictions,  with  the  more  generous 
and  statesman-iike  views  of  two  of  the  greatest  men  who  have  ever  aided  in  our 
public  councils  ;  We  mean  Alexander  Hamilton,  and  Albert  Gallatin, — whose 
celebrated  R-eports  upon  the  financial  concerns  and  commercial  policy  of  the 
Country,  were  not,  as  has  more  recently  been  the  case,  dictated  by  an  ex- 
clusive regard  to  "presidential  questions  '  and  "  zested  interests,"  but  by  a  just 
and  impartial  reference  to  the  great  interests  of  the  nation. 

"?so  cause,  indeed,"  says  Mr.  Gallatin  in  his  Report  of  1810,  on  the  subject 
of  American  manufactures,  "  no  cause  has  perhaps  more  promoted  in  every  re- 
spect, the  general  prosperity  of  the  United  states,  than  the  absence  of  those  sys- 
tems of  internal  restrictions  and  monopolies,  which  continue  to  disfigure  the  state 
of  society  in  other  countries.  No  laws  exist  here,  directly  or  indirectly  confining 
man  to  a  particular  occupation  or  place,  or  excluding  any  citizen  from  any  branch 
he  may  at  any  time  think  proper  to  pursue.  Industry  is  in  every  respect  per- 
fectly free  and  unfettered;  every  species  of  trade,  commerce,  art,  profession  or 
manufacture  being  equally  open  to  all,  without  requiring  any  previous  regular 
apprenticeship,  admission  or  license.  Hence  the  progress  of  America  has  not 
been  confined  to  the  improvements  of  her  agriculture,  or  the  rapid  formation  of 
new  States  and  settlements  in  the  wilderness  ;  but  her  citizens  have  extended 
their  commerce  through  every  part  of  the  globe,  and  carry  on  with  complete 
success  even  those  branches  for  which  a  monopoly  had  heretofore  been  consid- 
ered essentially  necessary. 

"  The  same  principle  has  characterized  the  introduction  and  progress  of  manu- 
factures ;  and  must  ultimately  give,  in  that  branch,  as  in  all  others,  a  decided 
superiority  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  over  the  inhabitants  of  countries 
oppressed  by  taxes,  restrictions  and  monopolies."  No  public  man  in  this  country 
ever  took  a  deeper  interest  in  the  success  of  manufactures,  or  did  more  to  aid 
their  introduction  and  establishment  than  Mr.  Gallatin  ;  but  he  did  not  think  it 
necessary  or  just  for  the  accomplishment  of  that  object,  to  restrict  and  tax  all 
other  branches  of  industry. 

The  following  extract  from  a  number  of  the  Federalist,  written  by  Hamilton, 
expresses  the  views  of  that  great  man  with  regard  to  the  beneficial  effects  of 
commerce  upon  the  great  interests  of  a  nation  : — "  A  prosperous  commerce  is 
now  perceived  and  acknowledged  by  all  enlightened \ statesmen  to  be  the  most  use- 
ful, as  well  as  the  most  productive  source  of  national  wealth  ;  and  lias  according- 
ly become  a  primary  object  of  their  political  cares.  By  multiplying  the  means 
of  gratification,  by  promoting  the  introduction  and  circulation  of  the  precious 
metals,  these  darling  objects  of  human  avarice  and  enterprise,  it  serves  to  invigo- 
rate and  vivify  all  the  channels  of  industry,  and  to  make  them  How  with  great- 
er activity  and  copiousness."  Again — "  It  has  been  found  in  various  countries, 
that  in  proportion  as  commerce  has  flourished,  land  has  risrnin  value.  And  how 
could  it  have  happened  otherwise  ?  Could  that  which  has  procured  a  free  ven,t 
for  the  productions  of  the  earth,  which  furnishes  new  enticements  to  the  culti- 
vators of  the  land,  which  is  the  most  powerful  instrument  in  increasing  the  quantii 
ttj  of  money  in  a  state — could  that,  in  line,  which  is  the  fruitful  handmaid  of  hv. 


15 

Now,  if  it  were  conceded  thnt  some,  who  advocate  the  doctrines 
of  Free  Trade,  are  open  to  the  charge  of  enthusiasm  or  extrava- 
gance,— the  facts,  arguments,  and  opinions  just  quoted,  are  from  the 
pen  of  a  man,  who,  our  opponents  will  admit,  is  not  himself  prone 
to  mental  delusions,  however  great  may  be  his  power  of  deluding  the 
minds  of  others.  But  in  truth,  the  doctrines  of  Free  Trade,  how- 
ever misttfied  and  perplexed  by  many  who  have  undertaken  to  dis- 
cuss them,  are  as  susceptible  of  demonstration  as  those  of  any  of  the 
sciences,  which  rest  for  support  on  reasonings  from  facts  and  expe- 
rience. If  there  are  any  who  douht  this,  we  refer  them  to  Mr. 
Webster's  speeches  of  1820  and  1824,  on  which,  as  we  humbly 
apprehend,  his  permanent  fame  as  a  statesman,  more  securely 
rests,  than  on  the  results  of  any  other  efforts  of  his  richly  endowed 
and  powerful  mind. 

Still,  it  will  he  said  by  the  advocates  of  restriction,  in  denial  of 
the  injurious  effects  of  the  existing  system  upon  commerce  and  nav- 
igation, that,  however  correct  our  theory  may  be,  facts  are  against 
us  ;  since  it  will  not  he  pretended  that  commerce  and  navigation 
have  not  flourished  for  twelve  months  past,  or  that  they  do  not 
now  flourish.  The  facts  we  admit  ;  but  they  do  not  warrant  the 
conclusion  drawn  from  them.  Our  commerce  and  navigation 
have  been,  in  common  with  almost  all  the  great  branches  of  industry 

bor  and  industry  in  every  shape,  fail  to  augment  the  value  of  tli.it  article,  which 
is  the  prolific  parent  of  tar  the  greatest  part  of  the  objects  upon  which  they  are 
exerted?  It  Ls  a  tonishing,  that  so  simple  a  truth  should  ever  have  had  an  ad- 
versary  ;  and  it  is  one  among  a  multitude  of  proofs  how  apt  a  spirit  of  ill-in- 
formed jealousy  and  of  great  abstraction  and  refinement  is  to  lead  men  astray 
from  the  plainest  paths  of  reason  and  convicti  n." 

We  will,  to  show  the  similarity  of  thoughts  and  feelings  between  men  of  kin- 
dred minds,  add  an  extinct  from  Mr  Webster's  speech  of  1S"24, — a  passage  quoted 
from  a  Parliamentary  Speech  as  expressive  of  his  own  opinions  and  feelings 
upon   this  m  s  I  mouieuti  us  questio  i. 

believed  t  hat  the  which  pervaded  mostparts  ofEurope,  especially 

Germany,  was  more  owing  to  commercial  restrictions,  than  to  any  theoretical  doc- 
trines on  government ;  and  that  a  free  communication  amongthem  would  do  more 
to  restore  tranquillity  than  any  other  step  that  could  be  adopted.  He  objected  to 
attempts  to  frustrate  the  benevolent  intentions  of  Providence.  He  objected  to  it,  as 
an  ti -social  ;  he  objected  to  it.  as  making  commerce  the  means  of  barbarizing  instead 
of  enlightening  nations.  'I  he  state  of  trade  with  France  was  the  mostdisgraceful 
to  both  countries  :  the  two  greatest  civilized  nations  of  the  world,  placed  at  a 
distance  of  scarcely  twent  v  miles  from  each  other,  had  contrived,  by  their  artificial 
regulations,  to  reduce  th  ir  commerce  with  each  other  to  a  mere  nullity." 

What  a  contrast  is  here  exhibited  between  the  just,  politic,  and  elevated  views 
of  these  truly  gre  :t  men.  and  the  D  irrow,  selfish,  and  immoral  notions  put  forth 
in  the  Address  of  the  Ni  W  York  t  onventi  n — "  that  nations  are  adversary  to 
each  other,''  and  "  free  trade  a  chartered  libertine  !  "  or,  what  is  still  worse,  the 
impiety  of  imputin  ;  to  I  r  ividence  the  design  of  planting  in  the  hearts  of  each 
member  of  the  human  family  "  those  foreign  antipathies,  the  <,'rrms  of  nationtd 
preservation,  which  prexent  nations  from  rushing  together  into  the  most  favor- 
ed  latitudes. 

It  is  by  such  doctrines,  addressed  to  the  worst  feelings  of  man.  that  this  unjust 
sys'eni  of  monopolies  and  restrictions  is  attempted  to  be  sustained.     But  bad 
as  are  the  sentiments  and  principles,  to  which  we  have  referred,  they  are  every 
way  worthy  of  the  cause  in  whose  defence  they  are  employed. 
3 


16 

In  the  Northern  and  Middle  States,  in  a  prosperous  condition,  for 
the  last  twelve  months  ; — not,  however,  in  consequence  of  the  Tariff, 
but  from  causes  wholly  independent  of  that  system, — to  some  of 
which  we  have  already  adverted,  and  to  others  may  hereafter  ad- 
vert. Willi  respect  to  our  commerce  and  navigation,  they  have  gen- 
erally been  in  the  state  in  which  Mr.  Webster  described  them  to  be, 
since  the  passage  of  the  first  prohibitory  act.  There  have  been  al- 
ternations of  prosperity  and  adversity  ;  but,  generally  speaking,  both 
these  branches  of  industry,  from  1816  to  1S30,  have  been  in  an  un- 
thrifty state,  often  in  a  very  depressed,  and  sometimes  a  ruinous 
condition.  The  consequence  has  been  a  regular  and  rapid  decline, 
both  in  our  commerce  and  navigation  ;  as  we  shall  more  particu- 
larly show  by  Custom  House  returns. 

From  1S26  to  IS29  our  navigating  and  commercial  interests  were 
in  so  depressed  and  ruinous  a  condition,  that  an  immense  number 
of  merchants  failed,  or  retired  from  business.  Ship-building  was  in 
a  great  degree  suspended  during  a  part  of  this  period,  and  to  such 
an  extent,  as  on  31st  December,  1829,  to  give  only  a  return  of 
1,260,797  tons,  being  less  by  1  1  j  ,43 1  tons  than  we  had  in  1816; 
and  in  our  foreign  tonnage  the  decline  was  from  800,759  to  650,- 
"  142.*  Our  exports  have  experienced  a  still  greater  decline,  having, 
from  1800  down  to  the  embargo  of  1807,  averaged  84,564,515 
dollars,  and  for  four  years  prior  to  that  measure  95,786,302  dollars. 
For  1816,  1817  and  1818,  they  averaged  S7,624,385  dollars;  but, 
as  duties  were  increased,  imports,  and  consequently  exports,  declined. 
Our  imports,  for  the  three  first  years  in  the  century,  amounted  on  an 
average  to  93,895.142  dollars.  From  the  commencement  of  the 
protecting  system  to  1 820,  no  returns  of  imports  were  made.  But  for 
1826,  1827  and  1828,  the  average  was  84,262,78 J  dollars,  and  they 
declined  the  next  year  to  74,492,527  dollars,  and  in  1830,  to 
70,876,920  dollars.  The  exports,  which  must  keep  pace  with  the 
imports,  have  also  declined  to  an  average,  for  the  last  three  years,  of 
72,840,955  dollars.  Thus,  while  our  population  and  wealth  doubled, 
our  commerce  and  navigation  declined  in  amount. 

It  was  the  decline  of  our  commerce,  consequent  upon  the  restrictive 
system,  which  deprived  our  ship-owners  of  their  occupation,  and 
compelled  them,  either  from  loss  of  capital  or  from  prudential  mo- 
tives, to  withdraw  from  navigation  and  commerce.  Thus,  those 
branches  of  industry  became,  in  1830,  more  profitable,  though  of 
less  extent,  than  they  had  been  with  half  our  population  under  a 
free  trade  system. 

"  Mr.  Webster,  in  li is  apeech  of  1824,  with  great  justice  reprobated  imposing  a 
tux  of  half  a  million  a  year  upon  our  shipping;  but  we  have  shown  that  the  an- 
nual taxes  now  paid  on  the  materials  used  in  the  construction  and  repairs  of  our 
shipping  amount  nearly  to  three  millions  per  annum. 


17 

Such  were  some  of  the  causes  of  the  advance  in  freights  in  1S31. 
But  the  ship-owners  are  already  beginning  to  feel  the  effects  of  the 
competition  of  the  lower  taxed  shipping  of  our  commercial  rivals, 
whose  tonnage,  as  we  have  already  shown,  has  increased,  since  1821, 
from  So, 073  to  1^9,157  tons,  and  will,  as  we  have  good  reasons  to 
believe,  exceed  this  latter  amount  (or  the  current  and  coming  years. 
The  time  is,  we  fear,  near  at  hand,  when  hoth  our  commercial  and 
navigating  interests  will  he  somewhat  in  the  condition  described  by 
Mr.  Webster,  in  his  Speech  of  1824. 

We  will  now  close  the  discussion  of  this  all-important  subject,  by 
a  few  more  extracts  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech  while  pleading, 
with  all  that  force  which  truth  gives  to  argument  and  eloquence,  in 
behalf  of  the  merchants  and  ship-owners,  whose  interests  are  so 
identified  with  our  national  safely  and  national  honor. 

"  The  condition,  sir,  of  the  shipping  interest  is  not  that  of  those 
who  are  insisting  on  high  profits,  or  struggling  for  monopoly;  but  it 
is  the  condition  of  men  content  with  the  smallest  earnings,  arid  anx~ 
ions  for  their  bread. 

"The  freight  of  cotton  has  formerly  heen  3d.  sterling  per  pound, 
from  Charleston  to  Liverpool,  in  time  of  peace.  It  is  now,  1  know 
not  what,  or  how  many  fractions  of  a  penny  ;  I  think,  however,  it 
is  stated  at  five-eighths.  The  producers,  then,  of  this  great  staple,  are 
able,  by  means  of  this  navigation,  to  send  it  lor  one  cent  a  pound, 
from  their  own  doors  to  the  best  market  in  the  world. 

"  Mr.  Chairman,  I  will  now  remind  the  committee  that,  while  we 
are  proposing  to  add  new  burthens  to  the  shipping  interest,  a  very 
different  line  of  policy  is  followed  by  our  great  commercial  and  mar- 
itime rival.  It  seems  to  be  announced  as  the  sentiment  of  the  gov- 
ernment of  England,  and  undoubtedly  it  is  its  real  sentiment,  that 

THE  FIRST  OF  ALL  MANUFACTURES  IS  THE  MANUFACTURE  OF  SHIPS.'' 


No.  8. 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE 


ANTI-COMMERCIAL    SYSTEM 


UPON 


THE   NAVIGATION,   COMMERCE,    AND   REVENUE 
OF  THE  COUNTRY. 


In  our  preceding  remarks  we  have  endeavored  to  trace  out  and 
to  demonstrate  the  pecuniary  effects  of  the  high  duty  and  prohibito- 
ry system  upon  consumers,  whether  in  the  form  of  duties  actu- 
ally paid  into  the  public  treasury  as  revenue,  or  in  the  more  dis- 
guised form  of  an  iucreased  price  paid  to  the  favored  classes  for 
certain  articles  of  home  production  forced  upon  the  nation  by  the 
exclusion  of  the  cheaper  foreign  articles,  which,  but  for  the  Tariff, 
might  be  obtained  in  exchange  for  the  productions  of  our  soil. 

Let  us  now  proceed  to  investigate  the  effects  of  the  exclusive  and 
anti-commercial  system  upon  the  shipping  of  the  country ;  which, 
as  we  have  just  shown,  is  so  heavily  burdened  by  direct  taxes  on  the 
materials  used  in  the  construction  and  equipment  of  ships.  This,  how- 
ever, is  not  the  only  way  in  which  this  great  interest  suffers.  The  em- 
ployment of  vessels  is  obstructed  and  diminished  by  the  exclusion  of 
foreign  goods,  which  consequently  diminishes  our  exportation  in  an 
equal  ratio  ;  since,  by  lessening  the  importation  of  foreign  goods,  we 
lessen  the  means  which  foreign  nations  would  otherwise  possess  of 
taking  our  productions.*     Commerce  is  the  exchange  of  the  pro- 

*  "  But  it  is  asserted  with  great  seriousness,  that  home  manufactures  give  em- 
ployment to  American  labor  and  capital,  and  thus  promote  American  interests. 
This  is  unquestionably  true.  But  it  is  likewise  true,  that  a  free  importation 
gives  an  equal  and  vastly  more  beneficial  employment  to  American  capital 
and  labor.     If  we  import  foreign  fabrics,  do  we  not  export  an  equal  amount  of 


ductions  of  one  country  for  the  productions  of  another  country  ;  and 
when  one  nation  refuses  to  take  what  the  other  can  alone  give  in 
return  for  the  commodities  she  may  want,  there  must  necessarily 
6e  an  end  to  all  commercial  dealings.  Consequently,  as  far  as  this 
system  operates,  it  decreases  the  demand  for  the  shipping  employed 
in  the  transportation  of  those  commodities.*  This  is  a  self-evident 
proposition,  which,  one  would  imagine,  must  command  the  assent  of 
every  mind.  Still  it  is  denied  by  the  advocates  of  restriction,  who 
affirm  that  both  "  our  commerce  and  our  navigation  flourish  beyond 
all  expectation." 

But  before  we  proceed  to  examine  the  assertions  of  our  opponents 
and  to  demonstrate  their  incorrectness,  we  will,  in  justice  to  them, 
aud  in  conformity  to  the  plan  we  have  adopted,  allow  them  to  state 
thhir  own  case. 

In  the  Philadelphia  Tariff  Address,  adopted  at  a  meeting  for  the 
choice  of  delegates  to  the  New  York  Convention,  it  is  maintained, 
that  "  while  agriculture  is  thus  benefited,  foreign  commerce,  naviga- 
tion, ship-building,  and  the  tonnage  generally  of  the  United  States, 
of  the  seas,  the  rivers  and  the  lakes,  have  constantly  increased  and 
are  rapidly  progressive." 

Mr.  Edward  Everett,  in  his  Address  to  the  New  York  Institute, 
asserts,  that  "  our  commerce  and  navigation  have  suffered  no  dimi- 
nution ;  our  ship-yards  are  in  a  state  of  most  profitable  activity ; 
our  coasting  trade  and  internal  commerce  have  greatly  increased, 
and  a  general  prosperity  pervades  the  country."     The  New  York 

our  own  productions,  the  fruits  of  American  labor  and  capital,  to  pay  for  them  ? 
Trade  necessarily  implies  an  interchange  of  commodities  ;  each  giving  that, 
which,  from  its  climate,  soil  and  other  circumstances,  it  produces  with  the  greatest 
facility,  and  receiving  that  which  it  cannot  produce  at  all,  or  which  it  can  pro- 
duce only  at  greater  cost.  If  we  will  not  buy  foreign  commodities,  we  cannot  sell 
our  own.  If  we  will  not  import,  we  cannot  export." — Boston  Memorial  of  1827, 
drawn  up  by  Chief  Justice  Shaw. 

"  Freedom  and  protection  are  most  indisputable  principles  whereon  the  success 
of  trade  must  depend,  as  clearly  as  an  open  good  road  tends  towards  a  safe  and 
speedy  intercourse;  nor  is  there  a  greater  enemy  to  trade  than  constraint." — 
Franklin  in  Defence  of  Free  Trade. 

""If  we  are  unwilling  to  receive  foreign  manufactures,"  says  Mr.  Justice 
Story,  in  the  Memorial  drawn  up  against  the  act  of  ltf'24,  "  we  cannot  reasonably 
suppose  that  foreign  nations  will  receive  our  raw  materials  ;  we  may  force  other 
nations  to  seek  an  inferior  market  for  their  productions,  but  we  cannot  force 
them  to  become  buyers,  when  they  are  not  sellers,  or  to  consume  our  cottons  when 
they  cunnot  pay  the  price  in  their  own  fabrics."  Again — "  Nations,  like  individuals, 
will  pursue  their  own  interests,  and  sooner  or  biter  abandon  a  trade,  however 
fixed  may  be  its  habits,  when  there  is  no  reciprocity  of  benefit,"  This  is  sound 
doctrine.  Still,  the  restrictionists  have  claimed  this  gentleman  as  an  advocate 
of  the  unjust  and  oppressive  system  now  in  operation. 

"  The  radical  principle  of  all  commercial  intercourse,"  says  Mr.  J.  Q.  Adams, 
in  one  of  his  Messages  to  Congress,  "  between  independent  nations,  is  the  mu- 
tual interest  of  both  parties.  It  is  the  vital  spirit  (if  trade  itself,  nor  can  it  be 
reconciled  to  the  nature  of  man,  or  to  the  primary  laws  (if  human  society,  that 
any  traffic  should  long  be  willingly  pursued,  of  which  all  the  advantages  are  on 
one  side,  and  all  the  burdens  on  the  other." 


Tariff  Convention  Address  goes  still  further,  and  says — M  It  was  af- 
firmed that  the  system  would  undermine  commerce  and  ruin  navi- 
gation ;  but  they  flourish  and  prosper  beyond  all  expectation." 
Again — from  Mr.  Rush's  last  Report,  we  extract  the  following  pas- 
sages :— "  It  was  believed  that  with  the  establishment  of  manufac- 
tures at  home,  foreign  commerce  would  ultimately  expand ;  but  it 
continues  to  be  believed,  that  the  latter  will  never  get  to  its  full  height 
in  the  United  States,  until  aided  by  the  laws  in  the  ways  recom- 
mended." Towards  the  conclusion,  the  subject  is  again  noticed  in 
the  following  terms  : — "  The  foreign  commerce  of  the  country  is  in 
a  state  of  solid  prosperity,  from  the  improving  condition  of  its  lead- 
ing departments  of  industry  at  home,  and  consequent  increase  in  the 
exportation  of  its  products;  the  increase  of  its  tonnage,  that  foun- 
dation of  naval  strength,  as  well  as  commercial  riches,  keeping  pace 
with  the  inert  (tsc  of  commerce,  &,c."  Again — from  a  letter  addressed 
by  Mr.  Clay  to  some  manufacturers  of  Pittsburg,  dated  May  3d, 
1831 ,  we  make  the  following  extract : — "  You  are  right  in  supposing 
that  1  derive  very  great  satisfaction  from  witnessing  the  prospects  of 
Pittsburg,  and  the  complete  success  of  our  American  System.  Never 
had  the  friends  of  any  great  measure  of  national  policy  more  cause 
to  rejoice.  Never  were  the  predictions  of  the  foes  of  any  such 
measure  more  refuted  than  in  the  instance  of  this  triumph  of  that 
system.  It  was  objected  to  it,  that  it  would  dry  up  the  sources  of 
the  public  revenue.  The  revenue  has  been  increased.  It  was  said 
that  our  foreign  commerce  would  be  destroyed.  Our  foreign  com- 
merce has  been  greatly  nourished  and  extended  by  its  operation, 
changing  only  some  of  its  subjects.  It  was  urged  that  it  would  im- 
pair our  marine.  Our  navigation,  and  especially  the  most  valuable 
part  of  it,  has  been  rapidly  extended." 

We  could  produce  extracts  from  numerous  speeches,  essays, 
reviews,  and  other  publications  on  the  side  of  the  Exclusive  System, 
of  similar  import ;  but  we  prefer  to  cite  those  authorities  on  which 
our  opponents  mainly  rely,  that  they  may  not  accuse  us  of  dealing 
unfairly  by  them,  as  they  might  do,  were  we  to  resort  to  the  pro- 
ductions of  the  less  intelligent,  and  less  able  defenders  of  the 
"  American  System." 

The  following  propositions  arc  affirmed  in  the  above  extracts  : — 

1st.  That  the  navigation  employed  in  the  foreign  trade  of  the 
country,  has  been  greatly  extended  since  the  protecting  system 
commenced,  and  was  so  extended  in  consequence  of  that  system. 

'2i\.  That  the  navigation  employed  in  the  coasting  trade  has, 
from  the  same  cause,  increased  in  a  still  greater  proportion,  since 
the  enactment  of  the  first  protecting  Tariff. 

3d.  That  our  foreign  commerce  has  been  cherished  and  greatly 
extended  since  1816,  and  is  at  this  time  in  a  state  of  rapid  ad- 
vancement. 


4th.  That  the  public  revenue  has  been  in  like  manner  augmented 
since  the  commencement  of  the  high  duty  system ;  and  generally, 
that  our  navigation,  commerce,  and  revenue,  have  flourished  and 
increased  in  a  greater  degree  since  the  origin  of  the  existing  sys- 
tem, and  in  consequence  of  its  beneficial  effects  on  those  branches 
of  industry,  than  at  any  period  prior  to  its  establishment. 

Now  we  apprehend  no  one  will  deny,  that  the  commerce  and 
navigation  of  a  country,  unless  obstructed  by  wars,  or  restrictions  of 
some  sort  or  other,  will,  like  all  the  other  great  branches  of  indus- 
try, keep  pace  in  their  growth,  with  the  increasing  wealth  and  pop- 
ulation of  a  country  ;  and  that  revenue  will  increase  in  like  propor- 
tion. Admitting  these  assertions  to  be  true,  it  is  clearly  incumbent 
on  our  opponents  to  prove,  that,  since  1816,  our  commerce,  naviga- 
tion and  revenue,  have  increased  somewhat  in  a  like  ratio  with  the 
augmented  wealth  and  population  of  the  country,  or  their  positions 
are  not  sustained.  For  instance,  it  will  not  be  sufficient  to  satisfy 
reflecting  minds  of  the  truth  of  their  assertions,  to  prove  that  com- 
merce, navigation  and  revenue  have  not  decreased  during  a  period 
which  has  doubled,  and  more  than  doubled  the  population  of  the 
country.  A  branch  of  business  which  remains  stationary  under 
such  circumstances,  must  have  been  in  a  declining,  and  not  in  a 
prosperous  condition.  The  commerce  and  navigation  of  a  country, 
when  in  a  natural  and  healthy  state,  free  from  foreign  or  domestic 
restraints,  will,  like  all  the  great  interests  of  a  nation,  grow  with  the 
growth  of  that  nation ;  and  consequently,  to  support  the  truth  of 
their  assertions,  they  should  show,  that,  since  1816,  there  has  been  a 
very  great  increase  to  our  shipping,  as  well  as  to  our  exports,  im- 
ports and  revenue — an  increase  somewhat  in  proportion  to  our  in- 
crease of  wealth  and  population. 

Now,  if  it  is  really  true  that  our  commerce,  navigation  and  rev- 
enue have  all  prospered  and  increased  in  as  great  a  ratio  as  under 
the  free  trade  policy,  it  is  of  great  importance  to  our  opponents  to 
have  these  facts  clearly  established,  inasmuch  as  the  establishment 
of  them  would  at  once  remove  many  of  the  most  important  objec- 
tions to  the  high  duty  system,  as  it  would  prove  those  duties  to  be 
inoperative.  But  what  evidence  has  been  adduced  to  prove  the 
correctness  of  the  assertion  of  our  opponents,  on  which  we  are  com- 
menting ?  None  whatever ;  and  yet  there  are  records  within  the 
reach  of  every  one,  to  which  they  might  have  resorted,  and  which, 
as  public  men  pretending  to  direct  public  opinion  upon  such  an  im- 
portant question,  they  were  bound  to  examine.  Instead,  however, 
of  availing  themselves  of  those  facts,  which  are  decisive  of  the  truth 
or  falsity  of  (he  propositions  which  have  been  advanced,  they  are 
content  to  rest  the  success  of  their  cause,  as  far  as  the  statements  in 
question  can  promote  it,  upon  their  mere  dicta,  instead  of  referring  to 
the  facts  which  were  accessible  to  all,  and  familiar  to  at  least  one  of 


those,  whose  business  it  was  to  arrange  and  place  them  before  the 
nation.  We  refer  to  Mr.  Rush,  the  former  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury, who  annually  made  up  those  statements  which  furnish  a  mathe- 
matical refutation  of  what  is  here  asserted  by  himself  and  others, 
with  regard  to  the  prosperous  and  flourishing  state  of  our  com- 
merce, navigation  and  revenue,  since  the  adoption  of  the  prohibitory 
system. 

The  advocates  of  the  restrictive  system  are  continually  reproach- 
ing the  national  parly,  with  relying  on  speculative  theories,  instead 
of  reasoning  from  facts.  Why,  then,  have  they  not  avoided  the 
error  charged  upon  their  opponents,  and  given  us  something  besides 
mere  assertions  *  to  sustain  propositions,  which,  on  the  face  of  them, 
bear  marks  of  incredibility  ;  namely,  that  a  system  which,  to  a  great 
extent,  prevents  foreign  nations  from  taking  our  productions,  by  pro- 
hibiting our  citizens  from  receiving  their  productions  in  exebange, 
has  a  tendency  to  increase  our  commerce,  navigation  and  reve- 
nue ;  and  that  such  have  actually  been  the  effects  of  this  system  ? 
Mr.  Clay,  in  some  remarks  which  follow  the  extract  we  have  given 
from  his  letter  to  the  manufacturers,  with  much  complacency  speaks 
of  "facts  which  have  falsified  the  predictions"  of  the  advocates 
of  the  national  interests.  But,  with  the  exception  of  the  fact'that  a 
shovel,  spade,  carving-knife,  &c.  had  been  sent  him  as  a  reward 
for  his  merit,  and  his  services  in  supporting  the  "  American  System," 
there  is  no  attempt  whatever  to  bring  forward  facts,  which  can  bear 
upon  this  great  question.  These  facts  are  registered  at  our  custom 
houses,  and  annually  placed  before  the  nation,  showing  the  amount 
of  our  imports,  exports,  tonnage  and  revenue. 

The  truth  is,  that  a  recurrence  to  facts,  will  be  most  sedulously 
avoided  by  every  shrewd  and  intelligent  advocate  of  the  "  American 

+  On  further  examination  of  Mr.  Clay's  letter  to  the  manufacturers  of  Pittsburg, 
from  which  we  have  just  quoted  a  passage,  we  do  discover  one  fart,  and  it  is  the 
only  one  which  has  been  adduced  In  support  of  the  declaration  that  our  commerce, 
navigation  and  revenue  have  been  cherished  and  extended  by  the  operation  of 
what  is  termed  the  "  American  System."  This  well  attested  fact,  from  which 
such  important  consequences  are  deduced,  is  the  fact  of  Mr.  Clay  having  re- 
ceived from  the  citizens,  to  whom  his  letter  was  addressed  "  a  shovel,  a  spade, 
an  axe,  a  hoe,  and  a  carving-knife  and  fork," — the  results  of  domestic  industry  ; 
thus  furnishing,  according  to  the  views  of  the  restrictionists,  the  most  unanswer- 
able refutation  of  the  opinions  entertained  by  the  national  party,  that  the 
i;  American  System "  would  )<  ssen  our  commerce,  navigation  and  revenue  ! 
Unfortunately,  however,  for  the  inferences  which  were  drawn  from  this  well 
authenticated/'/o'.  and  very  striking  illustration  of  the  benefits  ofthe"  Ameri- 
can System,"  it  is  equally  a  fuel,  familiar  to  every  well-informed  citizen,  that 
shovels,  spades,  axes  and  hoes  were  manufactured  in  great  abundance  fifty 
years  before  the  ,;  American  System"  was  imported  into  this  country;  and 
that,  too,  from  raw  iron,  produced  in  the  vicinity  of  Pittsburg  ami  other  parts  of 
Pennsylvania;  which  manufacture  then  afforded  immense  gains  to  the  iron-mas- 
ters under  a  duty  of  7%  per  cent. ;  and  even  this  duty  Mr.  Hamilton  thought 
might  perhaps  be  "dispensed  with,  as  being  too  high  on  a  rair  material.  The  in- 
terest- of  i lie  workers  in  iron,  were  not  then,  as  they  now  are,  sacrificed  to  the 
views  ofa  few  hundred  wealthy  iron-masters. 


System ; " — for,  if  correctly  adduced  and  fairly  dealt  with,  they  must 
necessarily  be  fatal  to  his  purposes.  The  restrictive  system,  under 
whatever  plausible  and  deceptive  terms  it  may  be  disguised,  is  still 
at  war  with  those  principles  of  justice  and  common  sense,  which 
usually  regulate  the  conduct  of  individuals  in  common  life  ;  *  and  all 
the  facts  which  are  brought  fairly  to  bear  upon  it,  serve  only  to  show 
its  folly  and  injustice,  and,  as  we  trust,  in  such  a  free  and  enlightened 
nation  as  this,  its  utter  impracticability.  Such  a  system,  then,  can- 
not be  sustained  either  by  facts  or  arguments,  but  must  ever  rest  for 
support,  as  it  heretofore  has  done,  in  all  ages  and  countries,  on  so- 
phistry and  misrepresentation,  acting  upon  the  ignorance,  the  preju- 
dices, and  the  passions  of  mankind. 

Let  us  now  bring  the  propositions  advanced  by  our  opponents, 
and  upon  which  more  than  any  other  they  rest  the  defence  of  the 
"  American  System,"  to  that  unerring  test  which  sophistry  cannot 
evade,  nor  dulness  misapprehend,  nor  the  most  deluded  and  unblush- 
ing advocate  of  restrictions  and  taxation  deny ;  that  is,  to  a  mathe- 
matical refutation. 

I.  Effects  of  High  Duties  on  our  Shipping  in  the  Foreign  Trade. 

1st.  It  is  affirmed  that  the  navigation  employed  in  our  foreign  trade, 
has  been  constantly  on  the  increase,  and  is  greatly  extended ;  and 
that  it  is  now  in  a  most  prosperous  and  flourishing  condition. 

Fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth,  this  is  not  a  matter  of  specula- 
tion or  conjecture,  but  can  easily  be  settled  by  a  reference  to  those 
facts,  which  the  national  party  are  constantly  challenged  to  produce. 
We  will  then  turn  to  the  tables  of  tonnage,  commencing  with  1789 
and  terminating  31st  of  December  1829,  this  being  the  last  return 
made,  and,  having  been  carefully  corrected  at  the  Treasury  depart- 
ment, it  may  be  relied  upon  with  more  than  usual  confidence. 

The  first  protecting  act  was  passed  in  1816,  and  took  effect  on 
the  1st  of  July  of  that  year.  We  shall  therefore  consider  the  pro- 
tecting system  as  having  commenced  with  the  tonnage  return  of 
1817.  To  know,  then,  what  has  been  the  effect  of  the  anti-com- 
mercial system  on  our  foreign  navigation,  we  have  only  to  compare 
the  tonnage  of  1817  with  the  last  return  of  tonnage  for  1829.  It 
appears  by  the  tables,  then,  that  in  1817  we  had  809,724  of  regis- 
tered tonnage  against  650,142  in  1829,  exhibiting  a  decrease,  since 

*  <;  In  short,  sir,  the  general  sense  of  this  age,  sets  with  a  strong  current,  in 
favor  of  freedom  of  commercial  intercourse  and  unrestricted  individual  action. 
Mia  yield  up  their  notions  of  monopoly,  o.s  they  yield  up  other  prejudices,  slowly 
and  reluctantly  ;  but  they  cannot  withstand  the  general  tide  of  opinion*' 

Mr.  Webster's  Speech  on  the  Tariff  in  1824. 

Again — "  The  best  apology,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  laws  of  prohibition  and  mo- 
nopoly, will  be  found  in  that  state  of  society,  not  only  unenlightened,  hut  slug- 
gish, in  whieh  ihov  arc  most  generally  established." 


the  protecting  system  commenced,  of  159,582  ;  that  is  to  say,  with 
a  population  of  less  than  9,000,000  in  1817,  we  had  25  per  cent. 
more  tonnage,  than  we  had  in  1829  with  a  population  of  upwards 
of  12,000,000. 

The  period  we  have  taken  to  show  the  effects  of  the  "  American 
System  "  upon  our  navigation  in  the  foreign  trade,  which  our  op- 
ponents maintain  has  constantly  increased  and  nourished,  is  13 
years. 

We  will  now  go  back  the  same  number  of  years,  immediately 
preceding  the  Tariff  of  1816,  and  see  the  effect  of  the  free  trade 
policy  upon  this  important  branch  of  industry,  whose  rise  or  fall,  in 
a  commercial  and  agricultural  country,  is  one  of  the  most  certain 
tests  of  the  wisdom  or  folly  of  the  system  of  commercial  laws,  un- 
der which  such  a  nation  is  acting. 

The  tonnage,  then,  in  1804,  was  G72,530  against  800,759  in 
1816;  exhibiting  an  increase  of  128,229,  or  19  per  cent,  in  13 
years.  Thus,  while  the  tonnage  in  the  foreign  trade  decreased 
upwards  of  19  per  cent,  in  13  years,  under  the  exclusive  or  "  Amer- 
ican System,"  it  increased  upwards  of  19  per  cent.,  in  the  same 
period  of  time,  under  a  free  trade  system. 

But  this  statement  does  not  present  the  full  advantages  of  the 
free  trade  over  the  exclusive  system ;  because,  in  the  interval  be- 
tween 1804  and  1816  there  had  been  an  embargo  of  two  years, 
and  nearly  three  years  of  war,  besides  great  embarrassments  and 
interruptions  from  the  decrees,  orders  in  council,  blockades, 
seizures  and  confiscations  made  by  most  of  the  belligerent  nations, 
which  reduced  our  navigation  much  below  what  it  would  have  been 
but  for  those  interruptions  and  losses. 

Let  us,  then,  go  back  to  the  origin  of  the  tables,  and  we  shall 
find  that  the  registered  tonnage  in  1789  was  128,893.  We  at  that 
time  had  but  little  capital,  and  still  less  credit  among  the  nations 
with  whom  we  traded.  But,  such  is  the  effect  of  a  wise,  just  and 
liberal  system  of  commercial  laws,  which  leaves  all  branches  of  in- 
dustry to  the  management  of  individuals,*  free  from  restraints,  tax- 
ation and  legislative  interference, — our  foreign  navigation  flour- 
ished in  common  with  all  other  branches  of  business ;  and  at  the 
end  of  the  century,  our  shipping  in  the  foreign  trade  extended  to 
669,921  tons,  and  went  on  increasing  till  it  reached  984,059  tons, 
at  the  close  of  1810.  At  that  period  our  commerce  began  to  de- 
cline, vexed  as  it  was  by  various  interruptions  from  the  belligerents, 
which  ultimately  led  to  a  war  with  Great  Britain. 

*  "  The  freedom  of  trade,"  says  the  North  American  Review,  in  an  essay  attri- 
buted to  Mr.  E.  Everett,  "  by  creating  and  extending  competition,  is  conducive 
to  public  prosperity,  and  ought  never  to  be  restrained  but  in  order  to  attain  scyn* 
national  advantage,  fully  compensating  the  expense  and  inconvenience  pro- 
duced by  the  restriction.1' 


8 

If,  then,  we  were  lo  take  the  increase  of  our  navigation,  accord- 
ing to  the  ratio  of  its  increase  under  the  free  trade  policy  estab- 
lished by  Washington  and  his  intelligent  and  patriotic  counsellors, 
we  should  at  this  time  have  had  more  than  1,500,000  tons  engaged 
in  the  foreign  trade.  But  it  will  probably  be  contended  by  many 
intelligent  men  of  all  parties,  that,  as  we  for  many  years  enjoyed 
the  carrying  trade  of  most  of  the  nations  of  Europe,  which  were 
then  involved  in  war,  it  could  not  be  expected  that  our  navigation 
in  the  foreign  trade  should  go  on  increasing  in  the  ratio  it  had  in- 
creased during  that  period. 

We  grant  that  there  is  some  ground  for  this  supposition,  but  not 
so  much  as  is  generally  imagined.  In  the  first  place,  Great  Britain, 
almost  our  only  competitor  for  the  carrying  trade  of  the  world, 
was,  on  the  whole,  as  favorably  situated  as  we  were,  to  pursue  this 
branch  of  business.  In  the  next  place,  it  is  notorious  that  the  Bal- 
tic and  Mediterranean  states,  which  enjoyed  a  considerable  share 
of  the  carrying  trade,  have  almost  ceased  to  be  even  their  own 
carriers.  Holland  has  very  little  shipping,  Spain  and  Portugal 
less  than  they  had  at  the  time  when  our  foreign  commerce  was  in 
its  most  growing  condition.  France,  of  all  the  commercial  nations 
of  Europe,  save  Great  Britain,  has  had  the  greatest  accession  to  her 
navigation ;  still  she  does  not  employ  so  much  tonnage  in  the  for- 
eign trade,  judging  from  the  statements  which  are  published,  as  the 
city  of  New  York.  Nor  can  that  fine  kingdom,  with  her  intelligent, 
industrious,  and  comparatively  enlightened  population,  possessing,  too, 
greater  natural  resources  than  any  country  in  the  world,  become  a 
navigating,  a  commercial,  nor  a  successful  manufacturing  nation, 
till  she  abandons  those  restrictions  upon  industry,  which  she  main- 
tains, not  in  accordance  with  the  opinions  of  her  wisest  statesmen 
and  economists,  but  by  "the  influence  and  power  of  those  combina- 
tions of  capitalists  and  those  vested  interests,  which,  in  that  country 
as  in  this,  are  more  regarded  by  men  in  power  and  aspirants  to  of- 
fice, than  the  vested  rights  of  the  people,  who  submit  to  a  most  in- 
jurious system  of  taxation  and  restraints,  under  the  delusive  notion, 
that  the  honor,  dignity,  and  welfare  of  the  nation  are  promoted  by 
such  a  system. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  United  States  still  divide  with 
Great  Britain,  almost  without  a  competitor,  the  carrying  trade  of 
the  world.  And,  as  we  enjoy  many  decided  advantages  over  that 
nation,  the  increase  of  our  navigation  in  the  foreign  trade,  ought, 
at  least,  to  keep  pace  with  hers  ;  and,  no  doubt,  such  would  have 
been  the  case,  but  for  the  taxation  and  restrictions  imposed  upon 
our  commerce  and  navigation.  But  what  are  the  facts  ?  Our  nav- 
igation in  the  foreign  trade,  as  we  have  already  shown,  has  greatly 
declined  since  the  protecting  system  commenced  ;  and  so  have  our 
import  and  export  commerce,  and  our  revenue,  as  we  shall  hereaf- 
ter show. 


9 

We  will  now  see  what  has  heen  the  progress,  and  what  is  the  pre- 
sent condition  of  this  branch  of  British  industry,  going  hack  to  the 
period  of  1817. 

From  an  authentic  statement  before  us,  we  perceive  that  the  ton- 
nage of  British  ships,  which  entered  the  United  Kingdom  in  1817, 
from  foreign  countries,  was  1,625,121  against  2,184,535  in  1829, 
exhibiting  an  increase  in  13  years  of  559,414  tons,  or  upwards  of 
34  per  cent. ;  while  during  the  same  period,  the  navigation  of  the 
United  States  engaged  in  foreign  trade,  has  declined  from  809,724 
to  650,142  tons,  exhibiting  a  decrease  in  the  same  13  years  of 
159,582  tons,  equal  to  19  per  cent. 

Can  any  thing  be  more  disheartening  to  every  true  friend  of  his 
country  than  the  contrast  here  exhibited,  between  the  flourishing 
condition  of  the  navigation  of  Great  Britain  and  the  rapid  decline 
of  ours?  And  what,  we  would  inquire,  are  the  reasons  of  the  decay 
of  the  one,  and  the  prosperity  of  the  other?  We  have  a  cheap  and 
a  fertile  soil,  and  a  greater  diversity  of  climate  and  productions  than 
Great  Britain.  WTe  have  good  laws  and  a  just  administration  of 
them.  We  have  an  economical  government.  We  have  been  free 
from  wars  and  apprehensions  of  wars,  and  have  been  blessed  with  a 
series  of  abundant  harvests,  almost  without  exception.  In  truth, 
neither  Great  Britain,  nor  any  other  nation  on  the  globe,  can  be  said 
to  possess  so  many  moral,  political  and  physical  blessings  as  we  en- 
joy ;  such  natural  and  acquired  means  of  creating  and  accumulating 
wealth. 

Great  Britain,  on  the  other  hand,  though  not  actually  engaged  in 
war,  has  frequently,  within  the  period  in  question,  been  greatly  dis- 
turbed by  the  apprehensions  of  wars ;  and,  in  consequence,  has  been 
forced  to  increase  her  expenditure.  She  is,  too,  burdened  with  a  di- 
rect annual  taxation,  for  the  payment  of  her  debt  and  the  current  ex- 
penses of  her  government,  of  250,000,000  dollars,  besides  her  pau- 
perism, and  other  taxes  equal  to  50,000,000  more  ;  while  our  annual 
expenditure,  with  half  her  population,  has  not  exceeded  25,000,000 
dollars,  which,  in  the  aggregate  for  the  whole  thirteen  years,  is  about 
equal  to  the  annual  public  expenditure  of  Great  Britain. 

What  then,  we  repeat,  is  the  reason,  that,  while  the  navigation 
of  England  has  increased  Si  per  cent.,  ours,  in  the  same  period  of 
time,  and  with  a  population  increasing  three  times  as  rapidly  as 
that  of  Great  Britain,  should  have  diminished  Id  per  cent.? 

To  those,  then,  who  have  carefully  examined  into  the  tendency 
and  effects  of  the  existing  system  upon  those  great  branches  of  na-> 
tional  industry,  commerce  and  navigation,  and  who  have  compared 
the  narrow  and  unwise  commercial  policy  pursued  by  this  govern- 
ment, with  the  more  liberal  and  wise  course  adopted  by  Great 
Britain,  the  causes  of  the  evils  in  question  are  most  obvious. 

NO.  Till.  2 


10 

This  government,  ever  since  the  protecting  system  commenced, 
has  been  burdening  commerce  and  navigation  with  taxation  and  re- 
straints ;  and  many  of  our  public  men,  who  aspired  to  power  or  who 
were  in  the  enjoyment  of  it,  have  endeavored  to  render  the  occupa- 
tion of  the  merchant  and  the  navigator  odious  and  troublesome,* 
viewing  them  as  a  class  of  men  standing  in  the  way  of  those  active 
and  powerful  associations  of  wealthy  capitalists  and  ambitious  politi- 
cians, which  have  so  long  influenced  or  over-ruled  our  national  legis- 
lation. 

*  The  embarrassments  growing  out  of  the  operation  of  the  existing  system, 
have  almost  driven  out  of  business  a  laro-e  class  of  importing  merchants.  Mr. 
Clay,  in  his  late  speech  in  the  Senate,  adverts  to  this  subject  in  the  following 
terms: — 

"  The  effect  of  this  vicious  condition  of  the  law  has  been  to  throw  almost  the 
whole  import  trade  of  the  country,  as  to  some  important  articles,  into  the  hands 
of  the  foreigner.  I  have  been  informed  that  seven-eighths  of  the  importation  of 
woollens  into  the  port  of  New  York,  where  more  is  received  than  in  all  the  oth- 
er ports  of  the  United  States  together,  are  in  his  hands.  This  has  not  proceed- 
ed from  any  want  of  enterprise,  intelligence,  or  capital,  on  the  part  of  the  Amer- 
ican merchant;  for,  in  these  particulars,  he  is  surpassed  by  the  merchant  of  no 
country.  Tt  has  resulted  from  his  probity,  his  character,  and  his  respect  to  the 
laws  and  institutions  of  his  country — a  respect  which  does  not  influence  the 
foreigner.  I  am  aware  that  it  is  made  by  law,  the  duty  of  the  appraiser  to  as- 
certain the  value  of  the  goods  in  certain  cases.  But  what  is  his  chief  guide  ? 
It  is  the  foreign  invoice,  made  by  whom  he  knows  not,  certainly  by  no  person 
responsible  to  our  laws.  And,  if  the  fairness  be  contested,  they  will  bring  you 
cartloads  of  certificates  and  affidavits  from  unknown  persons,  to  verify  its  exact- 
ness, and  the  first  cost  of  the  article. 

"  Now,  sir,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a  state  of  things  to  which  we  should 
promptly  apply  an  efficacious  remedy  ;  and  no  other  appears  to  me,  but  that  of 
taking  into  our  own  hands  both  parts  of  the  operation,  the  ascertainment  of  the 
value  as  well  as  the  duty  to  be  paid  on  the  goods.  If  it  be  said  that  we  might  have 
in  different  ports,  different  rules,  the  answer  is,  that  there  could  be  no  diversity 
greater  than  that  to  which  we  are  liable  from  the  fact  of  the  valuation  being 
now  made  in  all  the  ports  of  foreign -countries  from  which  we  make  our  importa- 
tions ;  and  that  it  is  better  to  have  the  valuations  made  by  persons  responsi- 
ble to  our  own  government,  and  regulated  by  one  head,  than  by  unknown  for- 
eigners, standing  under  no  responsibility  whatever  to  us. 

"The  other  change  to  which  I  allude,  is  to  reduce  the  credits  allowed  for  the 
■payment  of  duties  and  to  render  them  uniform.  It  would  be  better,  if  not  inju- 
rious to  commerce,  to  abolish  them  altogether.  Now  we  have  various  periods 
of  credit,  graduated  according  to  the  distance  of  the  foreign  port,  and  the  nature 
of  the  trade.  These  credits  operate  as  so  much  capital  on  which  the  foreign 
merchant  can  sometimes  make  several  adventures  before  the  arrival  of  the  day 
of  payment.  There  is  no  reciprocal  advantage  alforded  to  the  American  mer- 
chant, I  believe,  in   any  foreign  port." 

Mr.  Clay  affirms  that  government  is  defrauded  of  an  immense  amount  of  du- 
ties, by  false  entries  of  iron,  woollens,  bagging,  Sec.  This  assertion  is  support- 
ed by  the  declarations  of  so  many  well-informed  and  respectable  individuals, 
that  there  can  be  no  question  of  its  truth.  This  is  one  of  the  necessary  conse- 
quences of  extreme  duties,  and  we  apprehend  that  it  will  lie  difficult  to  devise  any 
laws  that  will  correct  the  evil.  There  is  also  a  most  extensive  smuggling  trade 
carried  on  upon  the  frontiers  of  Canada  and  Nova  Scotia.  If  the  present  high 
duties  are  to  be  continued,  we  trust  some  new  guards  will  be  placed  upon  the 
collection  of  the  revenue,  in  justice,  to  the  fair-dealing  merchant,  who  is  com- 
pelled to  pay  the  full  duties,  as  well  as  to  the  nation,  who  are  now  losers  of  a 
great  amount  of  revenue.  All  parties  will  join  in  support  of  any  act  to  pre- 
vent smuggling  and  fraud  ;  and  valuing  all  dutiable  goods  at  the  port  of  arrival 
would  be  iFie   most  effectual  mode  of  preventing  fraudulent  transactions. 


11 

The  government  of  Grent  Britain,  on  the  other  hand,  has  been 
relieving  her  commerce  and  navigation  from  those  taxes,  restric- 
tions and  monopolies,  imposed  on  them  in  a  less  enlightened  age  ; 
and,  so  far  from  discouraging  her  merchants  and  seamen  by 
injurious,  vexatious  and  oppressive  regulations  and  harassing  re- 
straints,— every  administration,  to  whatever  party  it  might  belong, 
has  shown  a  laudable  eagerness  to  promote  the  commerce  and  na- 
vigation of  the  country,  as  among  those  interests  the  most  essential 
to  the  security  and  welfare  of  the  nation.  These  and  these  only, 
are  the  reasons  why  commerce  and  navigation  have  flourished  and 
increased  in  Great  Britain,  while  they  have  diminished  and  are  still 
diminishing  in  this  country. 

Let  us  bring  this  investigation  to  a  conclusion,  by  comparing  the 
quantity  of  tonnage  now  employed  in  our  foreign  trade,  with  what 
it  might  probably  have  been,  had  the  affairs  of  government  continued 
to  be  administered  upon  the  wise  and  just  principles  of  commercial 
policy,  which  guided  Washington,  the  elder  Adams  and  Jefferson, — 
men  who  did  not  shape  the  legislative  action  of  the  government  to 
the  interests  of  a  few  thousand  ambitious  politicians  and  wealthy 
capitalists  and  corporations,  but  to  the  great  interests  of  the  nation. 

We  have  already  shown,  that,  from  1804  to  18 1G,  inclusive,  a 
period  of  13  years,  our  navigation,  though  interrupted  and  wasted 
by  four  years  of  war  and  embargo,  vexed,  restrained,  harassed,  and 
plundered  by  all  the  belligerents, — increased  19  per  cent.,  having 
augmented  in  that  interval  of  time  from  672,530  to  800,759  tons. 

On  referring  back,  however,  to  a  period  of  13  years  prior  to 
1804,  when  our  commerce  was  not  molested  by  belligerents,  or  on- 
ly in  a  trifling  degree,  we  find  that  the  tonnage  in  the  foreign  trade 
had  extended  from  363,1 10,  being  the  returns  for  1791,  to  597,157, 
being  the  returns  for  1803,  exhibiting  an  increase  of  234,047  tons, 
equal  to  65  per  cent. 

If,  then,  we  take  the  increase  for  the  13  years  of  uninterrupted 
free  trade,  being  equal  to  65  per  cent.,  with  the  increase  of  the 
13  years  of  commerce  interrupted  by  wars,  embargoes,  and  foreign 
aggressions,  which  we  have  shown  to  be  19  per  cent.,  we  find  the 
average  to  be  42  per  cent.;  and  if  we  assume  this  to  be  the  rate  at 
!  which  our  navigation  would  have  increased,  had  we  persevered  in 
the  free  trade  system,  we  shall  certainly  be  within  the  bounds  of 
probability. 

Our  tonnage  in  the  foreign  trade  at  the  commencement  of  the 
existing  system  in  1817,  was  809,724,  to  which  add  42  per  cent 
for  the  increase,  and  we  have  1,149,808,  as  the  tonnage  which 
would  probably  have  been  returned  on  31st  of  December,  1829,  as 
employed  in  the  foreign  trade,  had  we  continued  to  act  upon  the 
free  trade  policy.  Notwithstanding  this  demonstrative  evidence  of 
the  destructive  effects  of  the  existing  system  upon  our  navigation^ 


12 

which  has  often  been  presented  to  the  public  by  the  Editor  of  the 
"  Banner  of  ihe  Constitution,"  and  other  free  trade  advocates,  it  is 
contended,  by  the  restrictionists,  that  our  navigation  has  not  de- 
creased. 

The  navigation  we  actually  had  in  the  foreign  trade,  according  to 
the  return  of  31st  of  December,  1829,  was  only  050,142  tons,  in- 
stead of  1,149, SOS,  which  we  should  have  had,  if  our  navigation 
had  increased  in  two  thirds  of  the  ratio  which  it  did  under  the  wise, 
patriotic,  and  libera]  principles,  which  governed  the  conduct  of  Wash- 
ington and  those  great  and  good  men,  who  aided  him  in  the  assertion 
of  our  national  independence,  and  in  the  formation  and  establish- 
ment of  that  Constitution  whose  principles  have  been  since  violated 
by  the  enactments  of  laws,  which  oppress  one  class  of  citizens  for 
the  benefit  of  another. 

II.  The  Effects  of  the  Anti-commercial  System  upon  our  Coasting 
Trade. 

It  is  asserted  that  the  navigation  employed  in  the  coasting  trade 
has  been  immensely  extended  by  the  protecting  system,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  increased  demand  for  cotton,  wool,  flour,  &,c,  for  the 
consumption  of  the  manufacturing  States,  and  the  returns  in  manu- 
factures, which  must  be  transported  coastwise  for  the  payment  of 
them.  This  statement  has  been  circulated  with  so  much  industry 
and  so  often  repeated,  that  we  seldom  have  met  with  men  of  any 
party  who  did  not  believe  it.  It  would  indeed  be  singular,  if,  in  a 
country  with  such  an  extended  sea-coast,  and  with  so  many  bays 
and  rivers,  opening  annually  new  channels  of  communication  with 
the  Slates  where  population  is  in  some  instances  doubling  in  ten 
years,  the  coasting  trade  did  not  rapidly  increase.  It  is  not  won- 
derful, therefore,  that  when  the  assertion,  that  such  has  been  the 
fact,  is  circulated  and  repeated  by  respectable  and  intelligent  men, 
that  it  should  easily  gain  credence. 

In  addition  to  what  has  been  affirmed  upon  this  point  by  Mr. 
Clay,  Mr.  Everett  and  others,  the  subject  is  again  noticed  in  the 
New  York  Convention  Address  in  the  following  terms  : — "  The 
manufacturing  establishments,  now  spreading  through  the  United 
States,  sustain  their  agriculture,  have  revived  their  commerce,  have 
vastly  increased  their  coasting  trade  and  domestic  exchanges." 
Again — "  The  principal  commerce  among  the  several  States  of 
the  Union,  is  employed  in  the  transportation  of  domestic  manufac- 
tures, and  managed  by  domestic  exchanges,  which  have  increased 
beyond  all  computation  within  the  last  few  years."  Again — in 
the  Resolutions  introduced  at  the  meeting  for  the  choice  of  dele- 
gates to  the  New  York  Tariff  Convention,  by  Mr.  C.  I.  Ingersoll, 
one  of  the  Committee  appointed  to  draw  up  the  Convention  Address, 


13 

it  is  affirmed,  that  "  above  all,  the  coasting  trade,  that  primary  in- 
terest of  maritime  enterprise,  and  principal  nursery  of  a  powerful 
marine,  contrary  to  the  most  preposteroxts  representation*  of  its 
stagnation  and  comparative  decline,  has  extended  itself  far  beyond 
that  of  any  other  nation  in  the  same  time,  and  is  progressing  in  a 
ratio  of  the  most  gratifying  augmentation." 

The  Harrisburgh  Convention  Address,  more  specific  in  its  state- 
ments, because  drawn  up  by  men  possessed  of  less  prudence  than  is 
displayed  by  the  New  York  Convention,  asserted  in  1827,  that 
"the  protection  of  domestic  industry  had  built  up  the  commerce 
and  navigation  of  the  United  States,  and  had  probably  added  50  per 
cent,  to  the  internal  and  coasting  trade  within  five  years."  The 
statement  was  refuted  at  the  time ;  but  this  only  led  to  increased 
exertions  on  the  part  of  those  who  originated  the  misrepresentation, 
to  affirm  its  correctness,  and  to  make  it  answer  the  purpose  for 
which  it  was  intended, — that  of  deceiving  the  people  and  inducing 
them  to  bear  an  enormous  taxation,  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  a  few 
manufacturing  capitalists,  who,  if  they  did  not  originate  that  Conven- 
tion, contrived  and  managed  its  most  important  proceedings. 

The  advocates  of  the  "American  System"  have  here  repeated 
bold  assertions,  often  before  made,  and  reproved  the  national  party 
for  their  perversity  in  denying  them.  Why  did  they  not,  then,  we 
inquire,  as  in  a  former  case,  why  did  they  not  give  us  the  facts  so 
accessible  to  every  one,  and  which,  if  in  accordance  with  their  be- 
lief, would  have  established  their  position,  and  at  the  same  time  have 
convinced  their  opponents  of  the  error  which  they  now  so  confi- 
dently charge  upon  (hem?  This,  then,  like  the  former  question, 
must  be  decided  by  facts ;  and,  as  our  opponents  have  not  chosen 
to  make  their  appeal  to  them,*  the  duty  devolves  upon  us. 

*  In  reviewing  one  of  Mr.  Rush's  numerous  productions  in  favor  of  the 
"  American  System,"  we  find  one  attempt  to  sustain  the  point  in  question  by 
facts.  It  would  appear,  thm  two  or  three  years  before  the  art  of  1816  was  piss- 
ed, certain  packet  masters  bad  a  sloop  of  :?7  tons  engaged  in  the  coasting  trade 
between  Providence  and  Philadelphia;  and  that  in  the  year  1830,  the  tonnage 
in  this  husiness  had  increased  to b schooners  of  70  tons  each.  Upon  this  impor- 
tant and  interest i n Lr ./'"/  being  announced  to  Mr.  Rush,  he* makes  the  following 
comment  upon  it  in  his  answer  to  a  letter  from  tin-  packet  owners: — "  II  hat  a 
fact  does  your  letter  announce  .'  The  tonnage  of  a  line  of  pickets  between  Provi- 
dence and  Philadelphia,  increased  nearly  1200  per  cent,  in  16  years  '!  Let  this  fact 
be  promulgated.  It  is  better  for  our  aide  than  abstract  disquisitions  on  the  other, 
from  Mr.  Iluskissoii.  or  from  whomsoever  they  may  come."  And  upon  this  re- 
markable fiirt,  this  logical  and  ingenious  statesman  proceeds  to  build  up  a  course 
of  reasoning,  as  if  an  increase  of  383  tons  in  the  business  between  two  cities,  or 
1200  per  emit,  furnished  satisfactory  evidence  that  the  commerce,  navigation, 
wealth  and  population  of  the  whole  confederacy,  had  increased  in  a  similar  ratio 
Singular  as  it  may  appear  to  many,  to  find  a  man  who  has  occupied  an  impor 
tant  station  in  the  government.  reasonin-_r  in  this  manner,  yet  we  do  not  hesitate 
to  say,  that  it  is  one  of  the  most  logical,  satisfactory  and  conclusive  argum  :nts, 
which  is  to  be  found  in  the  various  official  reports  and  essays  of  that  gentleman, 
in  favor  of  the  existing  system. 

That  Mr.  Rush  is  a  sincere  believer   in   all   the   doctrines   which   have  como 


14 

Tt  is,  then,  maintained  by  the  respectable  authorities  we  have  cited 
in  favor  of  monopolies  and  restrictions,  that  the  coasting  business 
has  been  immensely  extended  since  the  protecting  system  com- 
menced ; — the  New  York  Convention  say,  "  beyond  all  computa- 
tion," while  the  Harrisburgh  Convention  with  more  precision,  though 
not  more  in  accordance  with  truth,  define  the  increase  to  have  been 
50  per  cent,  in  five  years.  On  the  whole,  it  might  reasonably  be 
inferred,  from  the  general  tenor  of  the  extracts,  that  the  coasting 
business  had  at  least  been  doubled  since  1817  ;  and,  as  our  adver- 
saries say,  by  the  operation  of  the  protecting  system. 

On  turning  to  the  tables,  we  find  the  enrolled  and  licensed  ton- 
nage for  1817  was  590,186  against  610,654  for  31st  December, 
1829,  being  the  last  return  which  has  been  published.  It  would  ap- 
pear, then,  that  with  a  population  of  less  than  9,000,000  in  1817  we 
had  20,468  tons  less  of  coasting  tonnage,  than  we  had  in  1829,  with 
a  population  of  upwards  of  12,000,000,  thus  exhibiting  an  increase  of 
3£  per  cent,  for  J  3  years  of  the  most  bounteous  harvests  a  nation 
ever  enjoyed. 

This  is  the  result  of  the  "  American  System,"  as  regards  a  branch 
of  industry,  which  has  been  universally  thought  to  have  been  more 
benefited  by  it  than  any  other. 

Let  us  now  go  back  for  13  years  immediately  preceding  the  ori- 
gin of  the  protecting  system  ;  and  we  shall  then  see  what  has  been 
the  effect  of  the  free  trade  policy  upon  the  coasting  trade  ;  or,  as 
it  is  justly  termed  in  some  of  the  extracts  we  have  given,  "  that 
primary  interest,  so  essential  to  our  naval  strength  as  well  as  our 
commercial  enterprise  and  national  prosperity." 

The  returns  for  1804,  which  was  13  years  prior  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  restrictive  or  anti-commercial  system,  give 
369,873  as  the  quantity  of  enrolled  and  licensed  tonnage,  or  ton- 
nage hot  employed  in  foreign  trade,  against  571,458  tons  for  1816 ; 
thus  exhibiting  an  increase  in  13  years  of  201,585  tons,  equal  to 
55  per  cent.,  as  the  result  of  the  free  trade  policy  upon  this  in- 
teresting branch  of  business,  employing  as  it  does,  directly  and  indi- 
rectly, ten  limes  as  many  persons  as  are  benefited  by  the  prohib- 
itory and  taxing  system. 

Thus  it  is  found,  on  reference  to  facts  affording  the  most  perfect 
evidence  which  can  be  desired,  that  the  comparative  effect  of  the 
free  trade  and  the  exclusive  system  upon  our  coasting  tonnage, 
according  to  the  last  Custom  House  returns,  has  been  as  55  to  3£. 

down  to  us  from  the  darkest  agea  of  ignorance  and  barbarism,  on  which  the 
fi  American  System"  is  founded,  no  one  can  for  a  moment  doubt,  who  is  con- 
versant with  the  productions  of  his  mind.  Cut  we  soberly  appeal  to  all  ration- 
al, reflecting  men,  wbo  an-  under  no  political  or  pecuniary  bins  upon  this  ques- 
tion, whether  a  cause  which  leans  on  such  arguments  for  support,  can  really 
;uerit  the  name  of  "  American  System  ?  " 


15 

Yet  in  the  face  of  these  facts,  which  have  heen  promulgated  frequent- 
ly in  the  papers  favorahle  to  the  national  interests,  the  New  York 
Convention  asserts,  that  the  "  manufacturing  establishments  have 
vastly  increased  the  coasting  trade,  and  that,  within  the  last  few  years, 
it  has  augmented  beyond  all  computation." 

But  in  order  to  perceive  the  full  effect  of  the  exclusive  system 
in  its  injurious  consequences  upon  the  coasting  trade,  we  must  com- 
pare the  tonnage  now  engaged  in  it,  with  that  amount  which  would 
have  been  employed,  had  we  persevered  in  the  free  trade  system. 

The  tonnage  not  employed  in  the  foreign  trade  in  1817  was 
590, 18G  tons.  The  ratio  of  increase  from  1804  to  181G  inclusive,  be- 
ing the  13  years  of  free  trade  prior  to  the  first  anti-commercial  ta- 
riff, was  55  per  cent.,  though  in  that  interval  our  coasting  trade 
was  interrupted  and  its  growth  checked  by  four  years  of  embargo 
and  war.  It  will  then  be  much  within  bounds  to  assume,  that  a  con- 
tinuance of  the  free  trade  policy  would  have  given  us  as  great  a  ra- 
tio of  increase  in  the  coasting  trade  from  1817  to  1829,  as  is  ex- 
hibited by  the  returns  from  1804  to  1817;  namely,  55  per  cent. 
If,  then,  we  add  55  per  cent,  to  590,186,  the  returns  of  1817,  it  gives 
914,788,  as  the  quantity  of  coasting  tonnage  we  should  have  had, 
if  the  free  trade  system  had  been  maintained,  against  our  last  return 
of  610,054.  Still,  with  these  facts  at  hand,  familiar  as  they  are  to 
every  intelligent  merchant,  the  advocates  of  the  national  interests  are 
denounced  at  every  tariff  meeting,  for  their  perversity  in  denying 
the  beneficial  effects  of  the  "  American  System  "  to  the  internal  and 
coasting  trade  of  the  country. 

We  have  shown,  that,  in  the  period  of  1 3  years, our  coasting  tonnage, 
while  we  were  under  a  free  trade  system,  increased  55  per  cent. , 
though  for  nearly  one  third  of  that  time  the  country  was  scourged 
by  embargoes  and  war,  which  necessarily  retarded  the  growth  of  the 
coasting  business  more  than  any  other  except  foreign  commerce. 
But,  fully  to  appreciate  the  beneficial  effects  of  a  free  trade  policy 
upon  the  coasting  business,  we  must  go  back  to  a  period  when  it  was 
unrestrained  and  unmolested  by  embargo  or  war,  and  see  what  was 
the  increase  under  more  favorable  circumstances  than  existed  be- 
tween the  years  1804  and  IS  16. 

If,  then,  we  go  back  13  years,  commencing  with  1791,  and  end- 
ing with  1S03,  it  will  be  found  that  the  returns  for  the  former  year 
give  139,036,  against  351,990  tons  of  coasting  tonnage  for  the  latter  ; 
thus  exhibiting  an  increase  of  2  12,954  tons,  equal  to  153  per  cent.y 
in  13  years,  while  undisturbed  by  wars  and  embargoes  ;  or,  what  has 
still  oftener  proved  fatal  to  the  commercial  interest  of  nations,  those 
governmental  regulations,  legislative  contrivances,  and  protecting 
systems,  founded  upon  erroneous  notions  long  since  exploded  by 
every  writer  and  statesman  whom  it  would  be  creditable  for  a  man 
of  sense  to  quote  as  an  authority  to  sustain  his  principles. 


16 

There  is  one  circumstance  for  which  some  allowance  should  be 
made  in  comparing  the  tonnage  returns  of  the  present  day  with 
those  of  a  former  period  ;  namely,  that  by  a  new  and  improved  mode 
of  constructing  ships,  there  is,  in  a  given  number  of  tons,  an  in- 
creased capacity  for  carrying  goods.  This  alteration,  however,  in 
building,  has  been  confined  mainly  to  one  class  of  vessels,  and  for 
the  most  part  to  those  built  in  some  of  the  New  England  States. 
The  navigation  engaged  in  the  fisheries,  in  the  whaling  business, 
and  the  coasting  trade,  together  with  the  vessels  employed  in  many 
branches  of  our  foreign  trade,  are  still  constructed  much  upon  for- 
mer models.  So  that  an  allowance  of  50,000  tons  would  be  a  large 
abatement  from  the  estimate  of  what  our  whole  tonnage  would 
have  been,  but  for  our  abandonment  of  the  free  trade  policy. 

There  is,  too,  another  consideration,  to  which,  however,  in  our 
apprehension,  more  weight  has  been  given  than  is  justly  due,  as 
bearing  on  this  question  ;  viz.  the  favorable  effect  of  the  wars  in  Eu- 
rope upon  our  commerce  and  navigation.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  early 
stages  of  those  wars,  both  those  branches  of  business,  which  were 
then  just  beginning  to  rise  from  that  state  of  depression  to  which  they 
had  been  reduced  by  the  revolutionary  struggle,  were  materially 
benefited  ;  inasmuch  as  we  then  enjoyed  the  carrying  trade  of 
those  nations,  which  were  embroiled  in  the  European  wars.  But  it 
is  equally  true  that,  during  the  progress  of  those  wars,  we  suffered 
more  than  we  gained  by  any  advantages  we  had  enjoyed  from  our 
neutral  position  ;  especially  if  we  estimate  the  losses  incident  to 
those  measures  which  our  own  government  thought  it  expedient  to 
adopt,  in  consequence  of  the  injuries  we  sustained  from  the  bellige- 
rents— namely,  embargoes,  restriction  and  war. 

We  apprehend,  however,  there  can  hardly  be  a  doubt  on  any  man's 
mind,  who  has  reflected  upon  the  subject,  that,  from  1804  to  1816, 
our  commerce  and  navigation  suffered  more  injury  than  they  de- 
rived benefit  from  the  wars  of  Europe;  especially  if  we  take  into 
view  the  losses  incident  to  our  own  measures  of  defence,  consequent 
upon  those  wars.  Yet,  as  we  have  shown,  our  foreign  navigation, 
during  that  interval,  increased  at  the  rate  of  19  per  cent.,  and  our 
coasting  navigation  at  the  still  greater  rate  of  55  per  cent.;  while  in 
the  subsequent  13  years  of  profound  peace  and  general  prosperity, 
our  coasting  tonnage  increased  only  3i  per  cent.,  while  our  foreign 
navigation  decreased  19  per  cent.,  exhibiting  the  mortifying  fact  of 
a  reduction  from  809,724  to  650,142  tons,  which,  however,  is  more 
than  can  be  profitably  employed,  while  taxed  and  oppressed  by  a 
"protecting"  system. 

In  regard  to  the  increase  of  the  coasting  trade,  the  public  has  been 
led  into  error  by  statements,  constantly  published  and  repeated, 
setting  forth  the  immense  quantity  of  produce  transported  from  the 
Southern  and  Middle  States  to  the  manufacturing  States.     "A  mil- 


17 

lion  barrels  of  bread-stuffs,"  says  the  New  York  Address,  "  are  im- 
ported every  year  into  the  Eastern  States."  No  one  will  dispute  this 
fact.  Indeed  we  had  supposed  the  importation  much  greater — es- 
pecially when  it  is  considered  that  a  large  portion  is  re-exported ; 
which  exportation  would  be  vastly  greater  but  for  the  high  duties, 
that,  by  excluding  foreign  goods,  deprive  foreigners  of  the  means 
of  paying  for  and  consuming  our  bread-stuffs. 

But  why  do  the  restrictionists  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  New  Eng- 
land imports  bread-stuffs  for  consumption  as  if  it  were  something 
new,  or  that  the  consumption  were  caused  by  the  Tariff;  when  it 
is  notorious  to  every  man  familiar  w  ith  our  commercial  history,  that 
New  England  has,  for  a  hundred  years  at  least,  been  in  a  consider- 
able degree  dependent  on  importations  of  bread-stuffs  from  other 
States,  having  for  more  than  that  period  been  a  navigating,  commer- 
cial and  manufacturing  people  ?  There  cannot  be  a  greater  error 
than  to  imagine  that  New  England  has  an  increased  population  to 
consume  the  agricultural  products  of  other  States,  in  consequence  of 
the  exclusive  and  anti-commercial  system.  New  England  no  doubt 
has  more  persons  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  cottons  and  wool- 
lens, than  she  would  have  had,  under  a  free  trade  system  t  but  these 
branches  of  industry,  at  least  that  portion  of  them  which  lean  on 
high  duties  for  support,  are  comparatively  of  no  moment  whatever, 
when  contrasted  with  the  employment  afforded  by  commerce,  nav- 
igation, agriculture  and  the  mechanic  and  manufacturing  arts  gen- 
erally— all  of  which  are  burdened  with  restrictions  and  taxation, 
that  New  England  may  make  a  few  more  millions  of  cottons  and 
woollens,  than  she  might  do  if  free  from  these  evils.  But  where 
there  is  one  additional  individual,  supported  by  manufacturing  cot- 
tons and  woollens,  there  are  at  least  two  deprived  of  employment, 
by  diminution  of  commerce  and  navigation. 

New  England,  then,  has  probably  less  population  than  she  would 
have  had  under  a  well-regulated  commercial  system ;  for  not  only 
have  her  commerce  and  navigation  suffered,  but  she  has  fewer  per- 
sons supported  by  manufactures,  than  she  would  have  had  under  a 
low  tariff  of  duties;  inasmuch  as  the  heavy  taxes  of  50  to  150 per 
cent,  on  flax,  hemp,  bar-iron,  lead,  wool,  indigo,  &c.  lessen  the  oc- 
cupation of  the  manufacturers,  and  above  all  of  the  manufacturers  of 
ships — so  important  to  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  nation.  We  re- 
peat, that  there  arc  two  persons  dependent  on  commerce,  navigation 
and  the  mechanic  and  manufacturing  arts,  in  New  England,  injured 
by  the  existing  system,  where  there  is  one  who  is  benefited  by  it ; 
consequently,  that  its  effect  is  to  lessen  the  demand  for  bread-stuffs 
and  other  productions  of  the  Southern  and  Middle  States,  much  be- 
low what  it  would  have  been  under  a  free  trade  policy. 

The  statements  to  which  we  have  alluded,  as  indicating  an  in- 
creased demand,  for  the  products  of  the  agricultural  States,  have  been 

NO.    VIII.  3 


1.8 

mainly  instrumental  in  seducing  the  farmers  of  the  Middle  and  West- 
ern Slates  into  a  support  of  the  "  American  System."  They  are 
told  by  those  who  had  an  interest  in  misleading  them,  that  the  ten- 
dency of  this  system  is  to  raise  the  prices  of  wheat,  tobacco,  pro- 
visions and  other  productions  of  those  sections ;  and  that  such  has 
been  its  effects. 

"  The  fact,  too,"  says  the  New  York  Address,  "  that  agricultural 
products  have  risen,  whilst  manufactured  goods  have  fallen,  furnishes 
the  best  proof  that  the  fall  of  prices  is  to  be  mainly  attributed  to 
the  competition  of  domestic  labor."  With  regard  to  the  fall  of  prices, 
after  what  has  already  been  said  upon  that  subject,  we  pass  it  by 
with  this  single  remark ; — that  our  opponents  are  just  as  correct  in 
imputing  that  fall  to  the  high  duty  system,  as  they  were  in  asserting 
that,  "  agricultural  productions  have  risen  in  price  as  manufactured 
goods  have  fallen."  There  is  hardly  a  single  agricultural  staple 
of  the  Western,  Southern  or  Middle  States,  which  has  not  fallen,  and 
greatly  fallen  in  price,  since  the  protecting  policy  commenced  ; — 
and  they  must  continue  to  fall,  if  not  in  the  money  price,  at  least  in 
exchangeable  value,  below  what  they  would  otherwise  do — if  the  ex- 
isting system  is  persevered  in.  For  the  necessary  consequence  of 
the  "  American  System  "  is,  to  reduce  the  foreign  demand  for  our 
agricultural  staples,  by  refusing  to  lake  in  exchange  such  payments 
as  foreigners  can  alone  make  us  in  return  for  them.  For  instance, 
flour,  on  which  fifty  times  as  many  persons  lean  for  subsistence  as  on 
the  protected  manufactures,  has  been  on  the  decline  ever  since  1817, 
and  was  lower,  taking  the  average  of  the  Philadelphia  market,  in 
1830,  than  at  any  time  since  1785,  if  we  except  four  years  only, 
and  three  of  these  are  found  to  have  occured  since  the  commence- 
ment of  the  protecting  system. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  asked,  if  it  is  our  object  to  have  it  infer- 
red from  the  facts  and  arguments  here  adduced,  that  because  our 
coasting  tonnage  increased  153  per  cent.,  and  foreign  tonnage  65 
per  cent.,  between  the  years  1791  and  1803,  such  a  ratio  of  increase 
might  afterwards  be  expected  under  any  system  ?  To  this  we  re- 
ply that  we  do  not  undertake  to  maintain  such  a  position,  deeming 
it  extravagant  and  unreasonable. 

In  1789,  our  whole  shipping  was  but  201,502  tons.  The  coun- 
try was  then  just  beginning  to  emerge  from  that  state  of  disorder, 
distrust  and  poverty,  incident  to  the  severe  struggles  we  had  just 
passed  through  for  the  attainment  of  our  independence.  Under 
such  circumstances,  taken,  too,  in  connexion  with  the  impulse  soon 
after  given  to  our  commerce  and  foreign  navigation  by  the  wars  of 
Europe,  it  was  reasonable  to  suppose  that  both  these  branches  of  busi- 
ness would  increase  in  a  greater  ratio,  than  might  be  looked  for  in 
in  the  ordinary  state  of  a  country,  when  those  branches  of  industry 
ere  in  a  more  natural  condition      We  shall  not,  therefore,  take  the 


19 

extraordinary  growth  of  those  years,  as  the  measure  of  the  future 
increase  of  our  commerce  and  navigation. 

On  referring  to  former  remarks,  it  will  be  perceived  that  we  have 
taken  the  increase  of  our  foreign  tonnage  at  A I  per  cent.,  being  die 
average  of  its  increase  during  the  period  of  free  trade,  when  under 
the  most  favorable  circumstances,  together  with  an  equal  period 
when  our  navigation  was  suffering  from  the  aggressions  of  the  bel- 
ligerents, embargoes,  war ;  and  certainly  it  cannot  be  considered  an 
extravagant  assumption  to  suppose,  that  it  would  have  gone  on  in- 
creasing at  this  rate,  from  L817  to  1829,  had  the  restrictive  system 
not  been  adopted  ; — and,  in  that  event  we  should  at  this  lime  have 
had  1,149,808  tons,  from  which  deduct  50,000  tons  for  the  new- 
mode  of  constructing  ships,  and  we  should  still  have  1,100,000  tons 
employed  in  our  foreign  trade  on  31st  of  December,  1829,  instead 
of  (550,142,  the  actual  return  at  that  period. 

In  our  estimate  of  coasting  tonnage,  we  pass  by  the  ratio  of  in- 
crease of  153  per  cent,  between  1791  and  1803,  and  take  that  of  a 
subsequent  period  of  13  years  (nearly  one-third  of  which  we 
were  suffering  by  war  and  embargo),  and  by  applying  this  rate  of 
increase  of  55  per  cent,  to  the  590,186  tons  of  coasting  navigation 
we  had  at  the  commencement  of  the  protecting  system  in  1817,  we 
find  914,788  to  be  the  quantity  of  coasting  tonnage  we  should  have 
had  on  31st  December,  1829,  had  the  free  trade  system  been  con- 
tinued, against  the  actual  quantity,  viz.  010,054,  which  stands  on  the 
Treasury  Report  as  the  return  of  that  year. 

In  conclusion,  we  think  that  the  facts  we  have  presented  demon- 
strate that  the  effects  of  the  anti-commercial  system  have  been  to 
reduce  our  coasting  and  foreign  navigation  753,992  tons  below  what 
it  would  have  been  under  a  free  trade  system. 


No.  9. 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE 

ANTI-COMMERCIAL    SYSTEM 

CP05 

THE    EXPORT    AND    IMPORT    TRADE 
OF  THE  COUNTRY. 


We  shall  now  examine  the  position  of  Mr.  Clay,  and  other  advo- 
cates of  restriction,  in  which  it  is  asserted,  that  our  foreign  commerce 
has  been  cherished,  extended,  and  is  now  in  a  state  of  rapid  advance- 
ment. 

It  will  not  be  denied,  we  imagine,  even  by  the  most  dull  or  disin- 
genuous opponent,  that  the  object  and  effect  of  the  high  duty  system, 
are,  to  keep  out  of  our  markets  foreign  goods,  which  would  otherwise 
come  in  competition  with  similar  domestic  productions.  If  such  is 
not  the  practical  operation  of  the  tariff  laws,  they  do  not  accomplish 
the  purposes  of  those  by  whose  influence  they  were  enacted  ;  viz. 
to  raise  the  prices  of  woollens,  iron,  glass,  sugar,  hemp,  &ic.  25  to 
50  per  cent* 

Now  it  appears  to  us,  that  there  is  no  principle  in  political  econo- 
my more  firmly  settled,  and  more  universally  admitted,  than  that 
commerce  is  the  exchange  of  equivalents — the  bartering  the  super- 
fluous commodities  of  one  country  for  those  of  another  country  ;  and 
consequently,  in  commerce,  nothing  is  either  given  or  received  without 

*  "  Prohibiting  the  introduction  of  foreign  manufactures,"  says  the  North 
American  Review,  in  an  article  ascribed  to  Mr.  E.  Everett,  "  or  imposing  taxes 
on  them,  can  benefit  the  manufacturers  only  so  far  as  it  tends  to  increase  the 
price  in  ourown  market,  of  the  articles  whose  importation  is  thus  restrained,  and 
is  therefore,  as  this  difference  of  price  is  paid  by  the  consumer,  a  tux  on  the 
community,  the  effect  of  which  is  to  encourage  the  production  of  these  articles 
at  home,  whereas  it  does  not  need  encouragement,  if  it  is  the  most  lucrative 
employment,  and  ought  uot  to  have  it.  if  it  is  so." 


2 

adequate  returns.*  This  principle  is  affirmed  by  an  authority,  to 
whom  we  have  often  referred  as  among  the  ablest  defenders  of  the 
free  trade  or  national  system,  and  who  at  the  same  time  enjoys  the  con- 
fidence of  our  opponents.  "  We  inhabit  a  various  earth,"  says  Mr. 
Webster,  in  his  speech  of  1824  ;  "  we  have  reciprocal  wants,  and  re- 
ciprocal means  of  gratifying  them.  This  is  the  true  origin  of  com- 
merce, which  is  nothing  more  than  the  exchange  of  equivalents ;  and 
from  the  rude  barter  of  its  primitive  state,  to  the  refined  and  com- 
plex state  in  which  we  see  it,  its  principle  is  uniformly  the  same,  its 
only  object  being,  in  every  stage,  to  produce  that  exchange  of  com- 
modities between  individuals  and  between  nations,  which  shall  con- 
duce to  the  advantage  and  happiness  of  both.  Commerce  between 
nations  has  the  same  essential  character  as  commerce  between  in- 
dividuals, or  between  parts  of  the  same  nations."  Again  ;  the  same 
principle  is  maintained  by  a  man  who  was  still  better  qualified  by 
experience,  study  and  reflection,  to  discuss  this  question,  than  even 
the  distinguished  statesman  we  have  cited.  We  mean  the  profound 
and  philosophical  Franklin,  one  of  the  earliest  advocates  of  free 
trade  and  free  government — resting,  as  they  both  do,  on  the  same 
principles  for  their  support.  "The  produce  of  other  countries," 
says  Franklin,  in  one  of  his  essays,  "  can  hardly  be  obtained,  unless 
by  fraud  or  rapine,  without  giving  the  produce  of  our  land  or  our 
industry  in  exchange."  j- 

If  this  doctrine  is  correct,  it  follows  that  our  import  and  export 
trade  must  depend  upon  each  other,  and  any  system  of  laws,  which 
diminishes  one,  must  diminish  the  other. 

An  act  lessening  imports  must  in  the  same  degreel  essen  exports  ; 
so  that  if  it  were  possible  for  a  country  to  carry  out  the  prohibitory 
principles  on  which  our  commercial  policy  is  now  based,  there  must 
necessarily  be  an  end  to  all  export,  as  well  as  all  import  trade. 

Even  Mr.  Rush,  the  most  extravagant  and  credulous  believer  in 
the  benefits  of  monopolies  and  restrictions,  admits  this  when  he  says, 
"  It  is  manifestly  what  we  send  abroad  which  must  in  the  end  give 
the  true  measure  of  what  we  are  to  receive  from  abroad."  This,  to 
be  sure,  was  in  the  face  of  an  accompanying  declaration,  that  there 
was  no  reason  to  suppose  the  Tarilfof  1828,  which  was  prohibitory 

*  "  Commerce  "  says  Mr.  Webster,  "  is  not  a  gambling  among  nations  for  a 
stake  to  be  won  by  some  and  lost,  by  others.  It  has  net  the  tendency  necessarily 
to  impoverish  one  of  Ihe  parties  while  it  enriches  the  other.  All  parties  gain, 
all  parties  make  profits,  and  all  parties  grow  rich  by  the  operations  of  just 
and  liberal  commerce." 

t  "  If,  as  is  sometimes  asserted,  apparently  to  excite  our  national  prejudices, 
foreign  nations  will  not  take  our  products — the  fruits  of  American  capital  and 
industry,  we  may  save  ourselves  the  trouble  of  adopting  any  retaliating  mea- 
sures in  the  shape  of  duties,  prohibitions  or  otiierwise.  If  our  products  are  not 
taken  by  foreign  nations,  it  is  quite  obvious  that  we  must  necessarily  cease  to 
take  their  fabrics,  and  of  course  the  home  manufacturer  will  have  the  exclu- 
sive enjoyment  of  the  home  market,  with  or  without  duties." 

Chief  Justice  Shaw,  Boston  Memorial,  1827. 


3 

of  many  articles,  would  lessen  exportntions  ;  which  is  indeed  affirm- 
ing, that  an  export  and  import  trade  are  not  dependent  upon  each 
other.*  This  however  is  in  utter  contradiction  of  his  first  proposition  ; 
for  if  it  he  true,  that  what  we  send  abroad  will  he  the  measure  of 
what  we  are  to  receive  from  abroad,  it  must  necessarily  follow  that 
what  we  receive  from  abroad  will  be  the  true  measure  of  what  we 
send  abroad  in  payment  of  our  imports. 

"The  extent  of  the  prosperous  commerce  of  a  nation,"  says  Mr. 
Adams,  in  his  last  Message,  "  must  he  regulated  by  the  amount  of  its 
exports,  and  an  important  addition  to  the  value  of  these  will  draw 
after  it  a  corresponding  increase  of  importations. "f 

Nothing  can  be  more  true  than  what  is  here  advanced,  and  the 
converse  of  the  proposition  is  equally  true,  that  a  decrease  of  impor- 
tations will  draw  after  it  a  corresponding  decrease  of  exportations. 
The  import  and  export  trade  must  keep  pace  with  each  other.  Na- 
tions cannot  receive  goods  from  abroad,  without  sending  an  equal 
amount  abroad  in  payment  for  them. 

If,  therefore,  we  cease  to  import,  we  necessarily  cease  to  export. 
This  is  one  of  the  elementary  and  immutable  principles  of  trade  which 
may  be  evaded  or  denied,  but  it  cannot  be  shaken.     If,  then,  high 

*  The  object  of  the  Tariff  party,  over  since  the  first  encroachments  by  the  act 
of  1816,  which  was  supported  by  most  of  the  Stales,  not  upon  the  principles  of 
prohibiting  importations  permanently,  but  as  giving  a  temporary  and  moderate 
protection  to  certain  branches  of  manufacturing,  which  had  grown  up  under 
war  duties,  and  which  without  this  aid  would  have  been  prostrated  and  ruined, 
has  been  to  prohibit  importations.  From  the  Memorial  advocated  by  Mr. 
Webster,  in  1820,  we  make  the  following  extract,  showing  what  were  then 
the  views  of  one  of  the  leading  partisans  of  the  manufacturers — we  mean 
Mr.  Henry  Baldwin,  of  Pennsylvania.  "  In  the  elaborate  defence  of  the  system 
by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  (Mr.  Baldwin,)  who  invented  it,  we  find  it 
repeatedly  asserted.  '  that  wt  must  command  our  own  consumption.'  Happily 
for  us,  this  phrase  is  interpreted  in  the  same  speech,  and  it  means,  as  it  seems, 
that  we  must  have  neither  imports  nor  importations;  in  plain  English,  that  we 
must  use  nothing  but  our  own  productions." 

I  Mr.  Adams  has  been  claimed,  by  the  Tariff  party,  as  an  advocate  of  high 
and  prohibitory  duties  ;  but  no  evidence  of  the  truth  of  this  allegation  has  been 
exhibited,  in  any  of  his  communications  to  the  public  that  we  have  seen.  The 
following  extract  from  his  last  Message  to  Congress  shows  his  opinions  with  re- 
gard to  the  existing  Tariff: — 

"  The  Tariff  of  the  last  session  was,  in  its  details,  not  acceptable  to  the  great 
interests  of  any  portion  of  the  Union,  not  even  to  the  interesl  which  it  was  spe- 
cially intended  to  subserve.  Its  object  was  to  balance  the  burdens  upon  native 
industry,  imposed  by  the  operation  of  foreign  laws ;  butnol  te  the  bur- 

dens of  one  section  ofthe  Union  by  the  relief  afforded  to  another.  To  the  great 
principle  sanctioned  by  tint  act,  one  of  those  up  m  which  the  Constitution  itself 
was  for u ied,  1  hope  and  trustthe  authorities  ofthe  Union  will  adhere.  But,  it"  any 
of  the  duties  imposed  by  the  act,  only  relieve  the  manufacturer  by  aggravating  the 
burden  of  the  planter,  let  a  careful  revisal  of  its  provisions,  enlightened  b\  the 
practical  experience  of  its  effects,  be  directed  to  retain  those  which  impart  pro- 
tection to  native  industry,  ami  remove  or  supply  the  place  of  those  which  only 
alleviate  one  great  national  interest  by  the   depression  of  another." 

Mr.  Adams,  in  common  with  intelligent  men  of  all  parties,  is  in  favor  of 
encouraging  manufactures;  but  he  is  opposed  to  resorting  to  expedients  for 
the  promotion  of  that  object,  which  are  injurious  to  the  rights  and  interests  of 
other  classes. 


duties  have  had  the  effect  to  diminish  importations,  they  must  also 
have  diminished  exportations  about  in  the  same  ratio. 

This  is  a  proposition,  from  which  a  mind  that  has  duly  reflected 
upon  the  subject,  can  no  more  withhold  its  assent,  than  from  the 
arithmetical  truth  that  two  and  two  are  equal  to  four,  or  that  the 
whole  is  greater  than  a  part.  Yet  the  most  imposing  arguments  in 
favor  of  the  restrictive,  policy,  proceed  upon  the  assumption,  that  our 
export  trade  has  not  been  diminished  by  the  exclusion  of  foreign 
importations,  and  that  such  is  not  the  tendency  of  that  system ;  and 
this  belief,  so  contrary  to  the  facts  we  shall  hereafter  adduce,  is  en- 
tertained by  thousands  of  the  deluded  supporters  of  what  is  termed 
the  "  American  System." 

As  this  self-evident  principle  is,  however,  disputed  by  some,  and 
misapprehended  by  a  still  greater  number  of  those  who  have  not  re- 
flected upon  the  subject,  we  will  attempt  to  explain  and  illustrate  its 
practical  operation,  by  applying  it  to  a  branch  of  commerce  among 
the  most  familiar  to  us  all. 

The  island  of  Cuba  has  a  soil,  climate  and  population,  best  suited 
to  the  cultivation  of  certain  staples ;  namely,  coffee,  sugar  and  mo- 
lasses. These  productions  of  her  soil  and  labor  constitute  nearly 
her  whole  available  means  of  paying  for  such  articles  as  she  does 
not  produce,  but  which  are  indispensable  for  the  subsistence  and 
comfort  of  her  inhabitants. 

These  islanders  have  found  from  experience,  that,  among  the  ar- 
ticles they  require  for  their  consumption,  lumber,  bread-stuffs  and 
other  provisions  can  be  procured  on  better  terms  from  this  country 
than  from  any  other ;  and  accordingly  they  annually  take  from  our 
merchants  to  the  extent  of  three  to  four  millions  of  dollars  worth  of 
those  commodities  in  exchange  for  the  great  staples  of  that  island. 
This  is  a  trade  which  to  men  of  common  sense  is  considered  like 
an  interchange  of  products  between  two  states  of  the  confederacy, 
and  clearly  beneficial  to  both  parties.  Still,  we  are  told  by  states- 
men and  politicians  who  advocate  the  "  American  System,"  that 
such  an  interchange  implies  dependence  on  a  foreign  nation,  ut- 
terly derogatory  to  the  dignity  and  honor  of  a  free  and  enlightened 
nation.* 

Let  us  imagine,  then,  that  Congress,  in  pursuance  of  the  principles 

"  "  The  independence  of  my  country  "  says  Mr.  Clay,  in  one  ofhis  speeches, 
"on  all  foreign  states,  as  respects  a  supply  of  all  foreign  wants,  has  ever  been 
with  me  a  favorite  object." 

To  be  independent  of  foreign  productions  by  having  them  cheaper  at  home, 
is  certainly  a  benefit ;  but  to  increase  the  cost,  of  many  of  the  necessaries  of  life, 
to  diminish  our  commerce  and  lower  i he  value  of  all  our  productions,  or,  in  other 
words,  to  lessen  our  means  of  support  in  order  that  we  may  be  the  more  inde- 
pendent, is  a  most  extraordinary  expedient  lor  attaining  that  end  ;  and  will  cer- 
tainly immortalize  the  statesman  who  first  carries  that  principle  into  successful 
operation. 


which  have  of  late  prevailed  in  the  regulation  of  our  commercial 
policy,  should  impose  such  high  duties  on  these  foreign  staples  as 
will  prevent  their  importation.  Is  it  not  evident,  that  hy  such  a 
measure  we  should  deprive  the  inhabitants  of  Cuba  of  the  means  of 
paying  for  our  productions ;  and  that  consequently  our  cxportations 
would  be  diminished  in  the  sum  of  3  to  4,000,000  dollars  per  an- 
num, the  amount  of  produce  formerly  taken  from  that  island,  but 
now  excluded  by  prohibitory  duties? 

It  appears  to  us  that  no  rational  and  candid  man  can  doubt  or 
deny,  that  such  must  be  the  effect  of  excluding  the  produce  of  Cu- 
ba ;  and  if  true  with  regard  to  the  commerce  of  that  island,  it  must 
be  equally  so,  in  respect  to  other  branches  of  commerce. 

But  it  will  be  urged  by  those  who  consider  gold  and  silver  as 
wealth,  and  the  only  thing  in  existence  which  merits  the  name  of 
wealth,  and  therefore  the  principal,  if  not  the  sole  object  of  foreign 
trade,  that  a  refusal  to  take  the  products  of  Cuba  would  not  disable 
her  from  buying  our  productions,  because  she  would  pay  for  them 
with  those  metals.  Now  the  idea  that  gold  and  silver  are  to  be 
viewed  as  distinct  from  all  other  exchangeable  commodities,  and  as 
of  more  value  to  a  nation  than  cotton,  lead,  iron,  sugar,  wheat,  or 
any  other  article  of  merchandise,  which  at  any  moment  may  be  ex- 
changed for  those  metals,  implies  an  ignorance  of  commerce  and  of 
the  nature  of  wealth,*  extremely  discreditable  to  men  who  aspire 
to  the  highest  offices  in  the  nation,  and  who  hold  themselves  up  as 
the  founders  of  an  improved  system  of  national  policy.  Yet  absurd 
and  preposterous  as  is  the  notion  of  the  beneficial  effects  of  accu- 
mulating the  precious  metals  beyond  the  wants  of  a  nation,  it  is  one 
of  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  "  American  System,"  as  ex- 
plained and  defended  by  its  most  influential,  if  not  its  most  intelli- 
gent advocates. 

Now  it  is  wholly  impossible  for  any  nation  to  pay  for  their  impor- 

*  "  That  the  welfare  of  an)-  state  depends  on  its  keeping  all  its  gold  and  silver, 
either  in  bullion  or  in  coin,  must  be  founded  on  a  very  narrow  principle  indeed. 
Ml  the  Republics  ire  kiww  of,  wisely  think  otherwise.  Spain,  the  grand  source  of 
silver,  allowed  the  free  exportation  of  it,  paying  a  duty  as  in  Great  Britain Jead 
and  tin  do;  nor  could  the  penal  laws  in  Spain,  prior  to  this  permission,  hinder  its 
being  exported  ;  for  it  was  a  commodity,  which  that  kingdom  was  under  a  ne- 
cessity of  giving  as  an  equivalent  for  what  was  furnished  to  them  by  other 
countries. 

"Could  Spain  and  Portugal  have  succeeded  in  executing  their  foolish  laws  for 
'  hedging  in  the  cuckoo,'  as  Locke  calls  it,  and  have  kept  at  home  all  their 
gold  and  silver,  these  metals  would,  by  this  time,  have  been  of  little  more  value 
than  so  much  lead  and  iron.  Their  plenty  would  have  lessened  their  value. 
We  see  the  folly  of  these  edicts  ;  but  are  not  our  own  prohibitory  and  restrictive 
laws,  which  are  professedly  made  with  an  intention  to  produce  a  balance  in  our 
favor  from  our  trade  with  foreign  nations  to  be  paid  in  money,  and  laws  to  pre- 
vent the  necessity  of  exporting  that  money,  whirl)  if  they  could  be  thoroughly 
executed  would  make  this  money  so  plenty"  as  to  be  of  little  value — are  not,  1  say, 
such  laws  akin  to  those  Spanish  edicts — "follies  of  the  same  family  ?" 

Franklin  in  Defence  of  Free  Trade. 


6 

tations  with  gold  and  silver.  Even  the  mining  countries  the  most  pro- 
ductive, could  do  so  only  to  a  partial  extent,  while  the  supply  in  other 
countries  is  limited  to  their  manufacturing  and  circulating  wants. 

The  basis  of  commerce,  then,  between  all  nations,  must  be  ex- 
change of  commodities  other  than  the  precious  metals.  The  me- 
tallic wealth,  in  the  form  of  precious  metals,  is  utterly  insignificant, 
compared  with  the  entire  wealth  of  the  world. 

The  value  of  all  the  coin  in  circulation  is  below  the  annual  value 
of  the  productions  of  Great  Britain ;  while  the  annual  supplies  of 
gold  and  silver  from  all  the  mines  in  the  world  are  less  in  value 
than  the  iron  and  the  manufactures  of  iron  of  Great  Britain ;  and 
would  be  insufficient  to  meet  the  payment  of  our  yearly  exporta- 
tions  of  produce.  It  is  surprising,  therefore,  that  with  these  facts 
in  view,  familiar  as  they  are  to  men  of  common  intelligence,  that 
public  men,  who  undertake  to  lead  and  enlighten  the  nation,  should 
persist  in  a  course  of  reasoning,  founded  on  such  erroneous  and  long 
since  exploded  notions  of  the  nature  and  use  of  the  precious  metals. 

In  the  second  place,  if  Cuba  or  any  other  country  with  which  we 
trade,  had  the  means  of  paying  for  the  productions  they  take  from 
us,  in  gold  and  silver,  those  metals  would  be  of  no  value  to  us,  ex- 
cept for  re-exportation,  beyond  what  is  requisite  as  a  material  of 
manufacture  and  to  keep  our  currency  in  a  sound  state ;  and  for 
these  purposes,  we  now  have  and  always  have  had  a  sufficiency ; 
nor  can  any  nation  which  has  articles  of  exchangeable  value,  long  be 
without  them,  since  there  is  no  species  of  merchandise  that  can  so 
easily,  so  cheaply,  and  so  quickly  be  transferred  from  one  country  to 
another,  as  the  precious  metals.  If  the  $20,000,000  of  coin,  or 
whatever  is  required  for  our  circulation,  should  be  annihilated,  it 
could  all  be  replaced  in  less  than  three  months,  and  there  would  not 
be  so  much  inconvenience  to  the  nation  at  large,  as  the  annihilation 
of  the  same  amount  of  wealth  in  the  form  of  iron  and  salt  or  any 
similar  articles,  so  much  more  essential  to  the  existence  and  com- 
fort of  man  than  silver  or  gold.  There  are  substitutes  for  gold  and 
silver  coin,  but  none  for  iron  and  salt,  and  it  would  require  much 
longer  time  to  replace  their  loss,  than  that  of  the  coin  necessary  for 
our  circulating  medium.* 

We  do  not  mean,  however,  to  deny  the  importance  of  the  precious 
metals,  as  performing  a  useful  office  in  regulating  our  currency ;  but 
any  increase,  beyond  what  is  wanted  for  that  purpose  and  for  man- 
ufacturing, would,  like  any  other  superfluous  merchandise,  be  of  no 
value,  except  to  be  sent  abroad  and  exchanged  for  articles  of  which 
we  are  really  in  want. 

♦  This  delusive  notion,  as  to  the  practicability  and  usefulness  of  obtaining 
specie  in  payment  for  our  exports,  instead  of  other  commodities  of  greater  utility, 
andt  supporters  among  the  most  intelligent  advocates  of  the  "  American  Sys- 
Iimii,"  iis  well  as  the  most  ignorant. 

Mr.  E.  Everett,  to  whom  are  attributed  some  of  those  excellent  esBays,  which 


Nor,  on  the  other  hand,  if,  in  accordance  with  the  views  of  those 
who  consider  an  unlimited  accumulation  of  the  precious  metals  as 
essential  to  the  prosperity  of  a  nation,  it  were  possible  by  l<  gislative 
enactments  (which  fortunately  it  is  not)  to  retain  double  or  quadru- 
ple the  quantity  we  now  possess,  would  it  he  of  the  least  utility  to 
the  nation  ;  as  the  only  effect  would  he  to  sink  its  value,  and  thus 
perform  the  business  now  perfectly  well  performed  with  -20,000,000 
dollars  with  the  increased  quantities  of  40,  or  80,000,000  dollars. 

In  such  a  case,  the  retention  of  this  superfluous  amount  of  coin, 
instead  of  benefiting  the  nation,  would  burden  it  by  the  employment 
of  20  or  60,000,000  dollars  of  unproductive  capital,  in  the  form  of 
an  unnecessary  and  useless  addition  to  our  metallic  currency. 

Why,  then,  are  we  told  by  the  New  York  Convention,*  by  Mr. 
Rush, 'Mr.  Carey,  Mr.  Niles,  and  other  advocates  of  the  restrictive 

formerly  appeared  in  the  North  American  Review,  exposing  the  folly  and  wick- 
edness of  monopolies  and  restrictions,  makes  the  following  remarks  in  one  of  his 
speeches  : — '•  In  reply  to  the  suggestion  that  the  Southern  planter  had  the  option 
to  take  specie  in  return  for  his  exports,  it  was  argued  by  the  gentleman  from 
South  Carolina,  that  England,  having  no  mines,  had  no  specie  to  give, — that 
if  she  had,  we  had  no  use  for  it,  as  it  is  not  an  article  to  be  consumed.  It 
was  justly  argued  by  my  colleague  (Mr..  Gorliam)  that  though  England  had 
no  mines,  she  nevertheless  was  the  great  specie  market  of  the  world."  To 
this  we  reply,  that  specie  accumulates  in  England,  occasionally,  as  it  does  here, 
and  is  sent  abroad  as  with  us,  to  exchange  tor  other  merchandize  ;  but  it  does 
not  follow  from  this  that  England  could  pay  for  the  products  we  send  her  in 
specie.  In  truth,  all  that  she  exports  would  be  insufficient  to  pay  for  any  con- 
siderable portion  of  the  cotton  we  send  her;  but,  if  she  would  send  us  the 
25.000,000  dollars  a  year,  which  she  takes  of  our  produce,  in  specie,  it  would  be 
of  no  use  to  us,  except  to  send  abroad  again  in  exchange  for  those  articles, 
which  it  is  the  object  of  the  "  American  System"  to  exclude  from  the  consump- 
tion of  this  country. 

The  following  extract  from  an  article  in  the  North  American  Review,  attrib- 
uted to  Mr.  Everett,  lays  down  the  correct  doctrine: — "The  trade  with  the 
East  Indies  is  condemned  because  it  is  said  to  diminish  the  specie  in  the  coun- 
try, and  that  this  necessarily  impedes  the  public  prosperity.  Both  assertions 
are  erroneous.  A  great  and  constant  demand  in  any  place  for  specie,  as  for 
other  property,  no  matter  how  it  is  to  be  used,  tends  to  make  it  mere  abundant 
and  cheaper,  vy  establishing  a  steady  and  extensive  marketfbt  it." 

*  "  A  reduction  in  the  price  of  exports,  following  an  excessive  importation, 
causes  a  state  of  exchange  which  leads  to  an  exportation  of  specie  ;  the  moment 
this  exportation  touches  that  portion  of  the  precious  metals,  necessary  to  sustain 
the  money  circulation,  the  operations  of  the  banks  become  embarrassed,  and 
distress  and  dismay  are  spread  through  all  classes." — .Xac  York  Tariff  jSddreSS. 

If  what  is  stated  in  the  above  extract  lie  true,  we  cannot  perceive  any  ten- 
dency in  the  anti-commercial  system  to  remedy  the  evil.  In  fact,  the  fall  in  the 
prices  of  exports,  instead  of  leading  to  an  exportation  of  specie,  produces  the 
opposite  effect,  by  inducing  eiportations  of  the  fallen  products,  and  thus  in- 
creasing the  fund  abroad  for  the  payments  which  are  required  to  be  made,  and 
consequently  prevents  the  necessity  of  exporting  sp 

That  this  and  every  other  country  is  sometimes  incommoded  by  a  scaroity  of 
specie,  and  sometimes  by  a  superfluity  of  it.  no  one  will  deny:  but  it  is  the  ef- 
fect of  free  trade  to  remedy  both  these  evils.  A  scarcity  of  coin  is  most 
commonly  produced  by  over  issues  of  bank  paper;  and  then  the  exportation  of 
specie,  though  a  tei.iporary  evil,  is  an  eventual  and  permanent  good,  by  com- 
pelling the  banks  to  withdraw  the  excess  of  paper,  and  thus  restoring  the  cur- 
rency to  a  sound  and  healthy  condition. 
NO.  IX.  2 


8 

system,  of  the  benefits  of  retaining  specie  and  the  evils  of  exporting 
it,  as  if  the  commerce  in  gold  and  silver  were  not  to  be  conducted 
precisely  upon  the  same  principles  that  regulate  all  other  commer- 
cial operations,  and  which  are  too  well  understood  by  practical 
men  to  need  any  advice  or  aid  from  politicians,  statesmen,  or  jour- 
nalists, especially  of  that  class  who  have  evinced  a  degree  of  igno- 
rance that  must  render  interference  from  them  peculiarly  dangerous  ? 

But  still  it  will  be  contended,  that  the  doctrine  maintained  by  the 
national  party  with  regard  to  the  nature  and  use  of  the  precious 
metals,  is  but  a  theory,  and  though  sound  in  itself  is  not  sustained  by 
practice.  Facts,  we  shall  be  told,  are  against  us,  and  the  popular 
objection  to  foreign  commerce,  that  it  drains  the  country  of  specie, 
again  returns. 

"  The  importation  of  foreign  goods,"  says  Mr.  Carey  in  one  of 
Ins  essays,  "  drains  us  of  our  circulating  medium."  It  is  true,  that 
the  exportation  as  well  as  importation  of  specie,  is  one  branch  of  our 
foreign  trade,  though  quite  unimportant  compared  with  many  others. 

When  specie  and  bullion  accumulate  beyond  the  wants  of  the 
nation,  they  fall  in  value,  and,  like  any  other  merchandise,  become 
an  object  of  speculation  to  the  merchant,  who  finds  his  account  in 
exporting  them.  On  the  other  hand,  when  they  are  scarce,  they 
rise  in  value,  and  it  becomes  an  object  to  the  merchant  to  import 
them ;  and  in  both  instances,  this  commerce,  if  advantageous  to 
those  who  are  engaged  in  it,  must  be  so  to  the  nation.* 

*  We  again  refer  to  Mr.  Webster  in  support  of  our  views  of  this  subject,  as  an 
authority  meriting  the  confidence  of  every  one,  who  wishes  to  possess  correct 
notions  upon  the  true  policy  of  a  nation  in  regard  to  commercial  restrictions. 
Few  men  have  defended  the  doctrine  of  free  trade  with  more  ability  and  more 
success  than  he  has  done. 

"  There  are  no  shallower  reasoners  than  those  political  and  commercial  wri- 
ters, who  would  represent  it  to  be  the  only  true  and  gainful  end  of -commerce  to 
•accumulate  the  precious  metals.  These  are  articles  of  use  and  articles  of  mer- 
chandise, with  this  additional  circumstance  belonging  to  them,  that  they  are 
made,  by  the  general  consent  of  nations,  the  standard  by  which  the  value  of  all 
other  merchandise  is  to  be  estimated. 

"  There  may  be  of  these  too  much,  or  toolittle  in  a  country  at  a  particular  time, 
as  there  may  be  of  any  other  articles.  When  the  market  is  overstocked  with 
them,  as  it  often  is,  their  exportation  becomes  as  proper  and  as  useful  as  that 
of  other  commodities,  under  similar  circumstances.  We  need  no  more  repine 
when  the  dollars  which  have  been  brought  here  from  South  America  are  de- 
spatched to  other  countries,  than  when  coffee  and  sugar  take  the  same  direc- 
tion." 

Again — "  We  have  no  occasion  for  the  precious  metals  as  money,  except  for 
the  purposes  of  circulating,  or  rather  of  sustaining  a  safe  paper-circulation  ;  and 
whenever  there  is  a  prospect  of  a  profitable  investment  abroad,  all  the  gold  and 
silver,  except  what  these  require,  will  be  exported.  For  the  same  reason,  if  a 
demand  exist  abroad  for  sugar  and  coffee,  whatever  amount  of  those  articles 
might  exist  in  the  country  beyond  the  wants  of  its  own  consumption,  would  be 
sent  abroad  to  meet  that  demand." 

It  is  impossible  t<>  explain  this  subject  in  a  more  concise  and  clear  manner, 
than  Mr.  Webster  lias  don.'  ;  and  yet  the  very  men,  who  have  read  his  speech- 
es  ;mc!  praised  them  !"'>:•  their  able  defence  of  the  great  doctrines  of  free  trade, 
now  assemble  together  in  conventions  t'»  proclaim  to  the  nation  the  evils  of  ex- 
porting the  precious  mctaU. 


The  statements,  however,  which  represent  the  foreign  trade  as 
draining  the  country  of  specie,  are  not  true  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  are  commonly  meant  to  he  understood  hy  those  who  make 
them.  The  impression  which  they  generally  wish  to  make  is,  that 
foreign  trade  diminishes  the  specie  in  the  country.  The  facts,  how- 
ever, prove  just  the  reverse.  The  importations  of  specie  more  than 
counterbalance  the  exportations.  Ijoth  are  the  effects  of  free  trade, 
the  tendency  of  which  is  to  keep  a  country  supplied  with  an  abun- 
dance of  all  commodities,  specie  as  well  as  other  kinds  of  merchan- 
dise. The  importations  and  exportations  of  specie  vary  in  their 
relative  proportions  like  all  other  articles  of  trade.  On  reference 
to  the  Treasury  returns,  we  find  the  exportation  of  specie  and 
bullion  for  1830,  including  domestic  manufactured  coin,  was 
2,178,773  dollars,  while  the  importations  amounted  to  8,155;964  dol- 
lars. The  aggregate  exportations  for  1829  and  1830  amounted  to 
7,102,803  dollars,  while  the  importations  amounted  to  15,559,576 
dollars  ;  and  as  the  consequence  of  this  excess  of  importation  beyond 
the  wants  of  the  country,  it  will  probably  be  found  from  the  next  re- 
turns, that  there  has  been  an  excess  of  exportations  over  importa- 
tions. 

The  aggregate  importations  of  specie  for  seven  years,  commenc- 
ing in  1824  and  ending  with  1830,  amounted  to  52,011,148  dol- 
lars against  an  exportation  of  45,277,300  dollars. 

The  excess  of  importation  arises  from  a  very  obvious  cause  ; 
namely,  that  in  a  country  increasing  as  rapidly  as  this  does  in  popu- 
lation and  wealth,  there  is  an  increasing  demand  for  the  precious 
metals,  both  for  circulation,  and  for  the  purposes  of  manufacturing.* 

*  As  one  of  the  numerous  instances  of  ignorance  or  misapprehension  upon  this 
popular  topic  of  a  drain  upon  our  specie,  we  present  our  readers  with  an  extract 
from  the  proceedings  of  a  meeting  at  Uniontown,  in  Pennsylvania,  for 
the  choice  of  delegates  to  the  New  York  Tariff  Convention.  At  the  head  of 
the  committee  stands  the  name  of  Mr.  Andrew  Stewart,  formerly  a  member  of 
Congress. 

"  Resolved  that  whilst  we  see  more  than  20,000,000  dollars  annually  ex- 
ported to  purchase  foreign  iron,  woollen  and  cotton  goods  alone,  which  we  have 
abundant  means  of  producing  at  home,  sound  policy  would  require  that  the 
present  Tariff  should  be  rather  increased  than  diminished,  so  as  to  save  and  cir- 
culate this  immense  sum  among  our  farmers  and  manufacturers,  rather  than. 
Bend  it  to  enrich  other  countries,  excluding  our  produce  by  prohibitory  laws." 

This  same  gentleman,  whose  name  is  connected  with  these  resolutions,  as- 
serted in  a  former  publication,  that  Great  Britain  took  annually  less  than  500 
dollars  of  agricultural  produce  of  all  the  States  north  of  the  Potomac  and  Ohio. 
So  far,  however,  was  the  assertion  from  being  true,  that  Great  Britain  and  her 
colonies  took  upwards  of  5,000,000  dollars  oi  the  productions  of  the  States  re- 
ferred to,  in  the  very  year  Mr.  S.  published  his  speech;  and  she  takes  of  flour 
and  flax-seed,  corn,  lumber,  beef  and  other  Northern  productions,  more  than  any 
other  nation,  and  of  some  of  those  staples  more  than  all  the  nations  with  whioh 
we  trade. — There  are  other  assertions  in  the  resolutions  referred  to,  equally  at 
variance  with  truth  as  those  we  have  noticed,  and  it  is  by  such  misrepresentations 
that  the  existing  system  is  maintained.  The  trade  witli  Great  Britain  has  been 
an  object  of  violent  hostility  with  the  advocates  of  the  prohibitory  system, 
because  it  is  from  that  country  we   receive  those  articles   which   interfere  t  Jo 


10 

There  will  be  an  exportation  and  an  importation,  but  the  influx  will 
be  greater  than  the  efflux.  The  effect,  then,  of  free  trade,  is,  to  keep 
in  a  country  an  abundant  supply  of  the  precious  metals  in  common 
with  all  other  articles  of  commerce,  while  the  tendency  of  a  restric- 
tive system  is  to  discourage  importations  of  specie  in  common  with 
all  other  commodities. 

Still,  it  will  be  urged  by  our  opponents,  as  it  has  continually  been 
done  by  the  leading  advocates  of  restriction,  that  the  inhabitants  of 
Cuba  will  take  their  supplies  from  us,  because  they  are  cheaper 
than  elsewhere.  But  this  is  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  doctrines 
always  held  by  Mr.  Binns,  Mr.  Baldwin,  Mr.  Niles,  Mr.  Carey, 
Mr.  Tibbets,  and  other  prominent  individuals  who  uphold  the  sys- 
tem of  raising  and  manufacturing  every  thing  at  home  which  a  coun- 
try can  produce,  cost  what  it  may  (as  in  the  case  of  woollens, 
sugars  and  iron  protected  by  duties  of  45  to  200  per  cent.),  in 
preference  to  procuring  it  from  other  countries,  in  exchange  for 
the  products  of  our  land  and  labor.  If,  then,  these  islanders  were 
to  be  influenced  by  the  doctrines  of  Mr.  Clay  and  the  example  of 
our  government,  they  would  even  now  prohibit  the  importation  of 

most  with  our  own  protected  productions.  But  of  our  domestic  produce.  Great 
Britain  and  her  colonies  take  a  larger  amount  than  all  parts  of  the  world  be- 
sides. From  1821  to  1830,  inclusive,  being  7  years,  our  exports  of  domestic 
produce  to  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies  amounted  to  100,152,627  dollars,  and 
to  all  other  parts  of  the  world,  190,950,910  dollars.  It  is  however  alleged,  on 
the  part  of  the  restrictionists,  that  Creat  Britain  will  not  take  Northern  produc- 
tions. Such,  however,  is  not.  the  fact,  as  will  appear  by  the  following  statements 
of  exports  from  1824  to  1  530, 

Exports  rro;i  1S24  to  1820. 

To  Groat  Britain  and  her  Colonies.  To  all   other  places. 

Flax-seed,         -         -  -         $1,573.203 $27,586 

Flour,           ....     10,859.806  ....            23%819>587 

Lumber,           -         -  -            3,632,115 8,568,436 

Pork,  Bacon  and  Lard,  -      2.064.145  ....  9.010,41(5 

Ashes,              -        -  -            3,866.205 SJ9G»,532 

Indian  Corn,        -         -  -       1,308,065 1,-193,052 

Horned  Cattle,  J           _  _        1,021,139 3,332,240 

Tallow,  Hides,  ) 

Oak  Bark,         -         -  -                331,962 400,381 

Ship  Bread,          -         -  -           451,336 077,002 

Leather,Boots )  _                m&l  ....  2,839,546 

and  bhoes,   J 

Skins  and  Furs,         -  -         2,631,718 1,373,09! 

Of  Southern  products,  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies  take  a  much  larger 
proportion,  and  the  proceeds  of  these  goods  are  to  a  very  great  extent  expend- 
ed in  the  Northern  States  for  Northern  manufactures  and  other  productions:  and 
yet  the  commerce  with  England  is  frequently  represented  as  of  little  value  to 
the  Northern  and  Western  sections  of  the  Union,  and  in  many  instances  even 
as  injurious  to  the  nation. 

Willi  regard  to  the  exportation  of  specie,  we  find  that  in  1S30  our  whole  ex- 
port to  Great  Britain  was  132,483  dollars,  while  we  imported  from  thenoe  144,231 
dollars.  Our  whole  exportation  of  specie  and  bullion  to  Great  Britain  from  1824 
to  1830  was  5,111,079  dollars,  being  equal  to  about  2 .J  per  cent,  of  the  amount 
ef  our  domestic  exports  to  that  country  and  her  colonies. 


tl 

our  staples,  though  they  might  cost  two  or  three  times  as  much  a<J 
if  raised  within  themselves.  Indeed,  if  the  doctrine  of  our  oppo- 
nents can  he  relied  upon,  the  higher  an  article  costs,  the  more  bene- 
ficial it  is  to  the  country.  When  an  advocate  of  the  free  trade 
policy  demonstrates,  beyond  all  doubt  or  contradiction,  that  a  do- 
mestic production  costs  more  than  a  foreign  one  of  equal  goodness, 
how  is  he  answered  ?  Why,  that  it  is  still  hotter  to  produce  it  at 
home,  because  tbe  production  of  it  employs  domestic  capital  and 
labor.  Now,  if  this  position  is  a  sound  one,  then  it  inevitably  fol- 
lows, that  the  more  a  thing  costs,  the  more  advantageous  it  must  be 
to  the  nation,  because  the  more  capital  and  labor  are  employed  in 
its  production.  This  is  placing  the  doctrine  of  the  "  .American  Sys- 
tem" in  a  strong  point  of  view ;  but  there  is  not  a  leading  principle 
advocated  by  its  most  ingenious  champions,  which,  if  analysed  and 
pushed  home  to  its  practical  consequences,  will  not  result  in  a  simi- 
lar absurdity.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to  imagine  that  the  people 
of  Cuba  will  be  so  dull  or  so  perverse  as  to  adopt  what  is  termed 
the  "  American  System,"  to  enable  them  to  perceive,  that,  in  case 
we  refuse  her  productions,  she  must  also  refuse  ours,  since  that 
must  follow  as  an  unavoidable  consequence.  She  will  be  compelled 
to  seek  her  supplies  where  they  can  be  had  in  exchange  for  her 
staple  productions  ;  and  if  there  is  no  nation  that  will  deal  with  her 
on  those  terms,  it  will  then  be  her  interest  to  produce  them  within 
her  own  territories. 

We  say,  then,  that  the  unavoidable  consequence  of  refusing  to  take 
the  productions  of  other  countries,  is,  to  disable  them  from  taking 
our  productions  ;  and  as  this  is  the  object  and  effect  of  the  existing 
system,  we  maintain  that  it  must  have  lessened  our  exportations  as 
well  as  our  importations. 

Of  the  destructive  effects  of  the  high  duty  and  prohibitorv  svstem 
upon  our  export  trade,  we  could  adduce  as  an  example,  the  com- 
merce with  Spain,  and  with  Portugal  and  her  colonies.  When  we 
admitted  the  productions  of  those  countries  at  about  one-fifth  of  the 
duties  they  now  pay,  they  took  in  exchange  from  us  about 
4,000,000  dollars  per  annum,  and  occasionally  a  much  larger 
amount  of  our  agricultural  productions;  but  under  the  present  ex- 
cessive and  prohibitory  rates,  our  exports  to  Spain  and  to  Portugal 
and  her  colonies,  have  not  for  some  years  averaged  over  half  a  mil- 
lion of  dollars. 

Poor  as  those  nations  arc,  they  cannot  exist  without  an  annual 
expenditure  of  at  least  200,000,000  dollars  worth  of  food  ;  and  as 
we  can  supply  man}'  articles  of  consumption  lower  than  they  can 
raise  them  from  their  own  soil,  there  is  no  question  that  an  admis- 
sion of  their  brandies,  wool,  wines,  lead,  salt,  fruits,  oil  and  other 
productions,  at  low  duties,  would  enable  them  to  take  in  exchange 


12 

for  those  staples,  eight  or  ten  millions  of  our  agricultural  productions, 
instead  of  the  half  million  which  we  now  send  to  them.* 

Such  have  been  the  effects  of  the  high  duty  system  on  this  branch 
of  commerce.  It  lias  added  25  to  50  per  cent,  to  the  cost  of  some 
of  the  necessaries  of  life  which  are  produced  in  those  countries,  and 
at  the  same  time  lessened  the  value  of  our  agricultural  productions 
by  depriving  our  customers  of  the  means  of  buying  them  ;  and  such 
must  be  the  effects  of  all  restrictive  and  prohibitory  systems  under 
whatever  plausible  or  deceptive  names  it  may  suit  their  contrivers 
to  disguise  them. 

Let  us  now  bring  the  principles  here  laid  down,  with  regard  to 
the  effects  of  high  duties,  both  upon  exports  and  imports,  to  the  test 
of  experience,  by  applying  them  to  facts,  which  our  opponents  have 
so  often  challenged  us  to  produce,  but  which  they  themselves  most 
carefully  avoid,  preferring  assertions  which  may  pass  without  exam- 
ination or  without  exposure,  to  facts,  which,  produced,  must  show 
the  falsity  of  their  assumptions,  and  the  absurdity  and  injustice  of 
their  principles  and  their  pretensions. 

It  will,  no  doubt,  be  conceded,  by  unprejudiced  minds,  that  the 
facts  we  have  exhibited,  showing  an  actual  falling  off  in  our  naviga- 
tion in  foreign  trade  from  809,724  to  650,142  tons,  since  the  com- 
mencement of  the  anti-commercial  system  ;  together  with  the  well- 
grounded  belief,  that  under  a  free  trade  policy  it  would  have  been 
extended  to  1,100,000,  afford  sufficient  evidence  of  the  withering 
and  destructive  effects  of  the  protecting  system  upon  the  export  and 
import  commerce  of  our  country.  We  shall  not,  however,  rest  wholly 
on  this  evidence,  conclusive  as  it  might  well  be  deemed  to  be  in  the 
absence  of  any  other  proofs,  but  proceed  to  lay  before  our  readers 
the  statements  of  exports  and  imports  from  official  records,  going 
back  to  the  origin  of  the  statistical  tables,  which  commence  in  1789. 

The  first  act  in  the  series  under  the  non-importation  and  non-ex- 

*  That  the  doctrine  of  prohibition  is  the  doctrine  of  the  annihilation  of  com- 
merce, as  far  as  prohibition  extends,  we  are  supported  in  maintaining  by  Mr. 
Webster,  in  his  speech  of  1824.  from  which  we  extract  tiie  following  passage  : 
— '•  Allow  me  to  ask,  sir.  if  the  doctrine  of  prohibition,  as  a  general  doctrine,  be 
not  preposterous.  Suppose  all  nations  to  act  upon  it,  they  would  be  prosperous, 
then,  according  to  the  argument,  precisely  in  the  proportion  iu  which  they 
abolished  intercourse  with  one  another.  The  less  of  mutual  commerce  the 
better,  upon  this  hypothesis." 

This,  however,  is  tin-  result  which  Mr.  Justice  Baldwin,  and  otherleaders  ofthe 
TariiFparty  sought  to  produce  by  the  introduction  ofthe  -'American  System;." 
and  this  is  what  is  meant  by  him.  when  he  tells  us,  that  the  country  ought  to 
command  its  own  consumption.  That  such  a  system  would  raise  the  price  of 
iron  in  1'ennsylvania,  which  appeared  to  have  been  one  of  the  principal  objects 
of  hit  efforts,  there  is  no  doubt;  but  how  it  can  give  the  nation  any  more  com- 
mand of  its  own  consumption  than  it  would  have  under  a  free  trade  system,  it 
is  not  easy  to  perceive,  nor  has  he  undertaken  to  show.  Yet  it  is  by  such  plau- 
sible terms,  that  the  country  lias  been  deluded  into  the  present  system,  which 
lias  lessened  her  prosperity,  and  weakened  the  attachment  of  many  of  our  citi- 
zens to  the  Union. 


13 

portation  policy,  went  into  operation  on  the  1st  July,  1816  ;  but  the 
duties  not  being  so  excessive  as  those  since  imposed  by  the  acts  of 
1824  and  1828,  that  law  did  not  operate  so  heavily  on  our  commerce 
as  the  subsequent  tariffs  have  done.  The  measure,  too,  was  an  ex- 
periment, and  our  importing  merchants  did  not  then  know,  as  they 
now  do,  how  fatal  it  would  prove  to  their  business  ;  and  consequently 
they  went  on  importing,  till  they  were  impoverished  or  ruined  by 
the  excessive  duties  which  were  exacted  of  them. 

Under  a  misapprehension,  then,  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
act  of  1816  would  operate,  our  merchants  continued  the  export 
and  import  trade  till  1819,  when  it  was  found  that  our  exports  were 
.$23,138,612  less  than  in  1818.  Of  the  imports,  no  official  returns 
were  published  till  1821  ;*  but  that  diere  had  been  a  great  falling 
off  is  apparent  from  the  revenue  return  of  1819,  which  gives  only 
17,116,702  dollars  for  duties  on  foreign  goods  against  32,395,061 
dollars,  the  average  amount  of  net  revenue  on  foreign  importations 
for  1816,  and  1817.  Does  not  this  decline,  both  in  our  exports 
and  imports,  show,  that  each  branch  of  commerce  must  depend 
upon  the  other, f  and  that  when  obstructions  are  thrown  in  the  way 
of  the  import  trade,  they  of  necessity  lessen,  in  the  same  degree,  the 
export  trade  ? 

The  first  tariff  act  came  fully  into  operation  in  1819,  and  after 
that  year,  our  exports  began  to  decline  rapidly,  as  will  be  seen  on 
reference  to  the  tables,  though  our  population  was  increasing  in  a 
ratio  never  experienced  in  any  other  country.  The  average  of  our 
exports  for  1816,  1817,  and  1818,  the  three  years  prior  to  the  full 

*  From  a  table,  published  in  the  proceedings  of  the  Harrisburg  Convention, 
it  would  appear  that  the  value  of  our  imports  were  34,685,454  dollars  less  in 
181i>,  than  in  1818.  The  moment  obstructions  are  thrown  in  the  way  of  imports, 
there  will  be  less  demand  for  exports;  because  foreign  nations  which  rely  on  us 
for  supplies  have  no  other  means  of  paying  for  the  latter,  than  by  giving  in 
exchange  the  productions  of  their  labor  ;  and  hovever  much  they  may  want 
our  goods,  they  must  take  a  more  limited  quantity  from  the  diminution  of  their 
means  of  paying  for  them.  1  he  operation  upon  our  foreign  export  trade  is  pre- 
cisely similar  in  its  effects  to  a  diminution  of  demand  for  the  products  of  any 
one  of  our  States,  relying  upon  another  State  for  the  consumption  of  its  products. 
For  instance,  suppose  New  England  to  be  a  foreign  independent  state,  with 
power  of  compelling  her  population  to  supply  themselves  with  bread-stuffs  from 
her  own  soil  which  might  be  done  by  artificial  contrivances,  at  about  double  the 
price  at  which  they  can  be  imported  ;  and  that  instead  of  purchasing  1 ,000,000 
barrels,  as  it  is  said  she  now  does,  from  the  Middle  and  Southern  States,  she 
should  refuse  to  take  any.  What  would  be.  the  effect  of  such  ameasure  upon  the 
commerce  of  those  sections  with  which  she  formerly  traded  for  corn  ? 

Why,  unquestionably,  there  would  be  a  diminution  of  the  exports  from  the 
grain-growing  States,  equal  to  1 ,000,000  barrels  bread-stuffs;  and  a  like  dimi- 
nution of  imports  from  New  England  of  such  articles,  as  the  grain-growing 
States  formerly  received  from  her  in  payment  tor  their  grain. 

t  "Imports  in  the  long  run,"  says  Mr.  II.  G.  Otis,  a  distinguished  advocate 
of  the  restrictive  system, li  cannot  exceed  ex  porta,"  and  consequently  exports  can- 
not in  the  long  run  exceed  imports.  If  yon  deprive  foreign  nations  of  their  on- 
ly means  of  paying  for  what  they  require  from  us,  there  must  be  an  end  to  all 
commercial  dealings. 


14 

operation  of  the  first  act,  was  87,624,358  dollars,  while  from  1819 
to  1828,  inclusive,  making  10  years,  the  average  amount  of  exporta- 
tions  was  reduced  to  75,937,473  dollars. 

The  act  of  1828,  having  greatly  increased  the  duties,  diminished 
our  importations,  and  consequently  our  exportations.  The  imports 
for  1828,  which  for  the  most  part  came  under  the  duties  imposed 
by  the  act  of  1824,  amounted  to  88,509,824  dollars  ;  but  the  first 
year's  operation  of  that  law  reduced  our  importations  to  74,492,527 
dollars. 

The  importations  from  1821,  being  the  commencement  of  the  Cus- 
tom House  returns,  down  to  1828  inclusive,  a  period  of  eight  years, 
show  an  average  of  81,657,998  dollars.  The  average  importations 
for  five  years,  viz.  from  1821  to  1825  inclusive,  was  80,059,122, 
with  an  average  population  of  ten  and  a  half  millions,  while  the 
average  of  the  last  two  years  has  fallen  off  to  72,684,738  dollars  ; 
and  in  1830,  with  a  population  of  thirteen  millions,  the  amount  of 
our  importations  had  declined  to  70,876,929  dollars. 

Our  exportations  keeping  pace  with  our  importations  have  also 
declined  to  an  average,  for  1829  and  1830,  of  73,104,089  dollars, 
thus  evincing  the  correctness  of  our  position,  that  the  export  and  im- 
port trade  depend  upon  each  other,  and  that  any  laws,  with  what- 
ever intent  enacted,  which  lessen  importations,  lessen  also  exporta- 
tions, and  thus  diminish  the  demand  for  our  agricultural  produc- 
tions, and  consequently  injure  the  cultivators  of  the  soil  more  than 
any  other  portion  of  the  nation. 

We  have  now  shown,  that  since  the  first  protecting  tariff  came 
into  full  operation  upon  our  foreign  commerce,  our  exports  declined 
in  twelve  years,  from  87,624,358  dollars  to  73,104,089  dollars, 
being  the  average  of  1829  and  1830;  but  it  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  the  duties  several  years  prior  to  the  period  in  question,  namely 
1816  to  1818,  were  high,  compared  with  those  of  an  earlier 
period. 

Let  us,  in  order  to  lest  more  accurately  the  effects  of  high  and 
prohibitory  duties,  refer  back  to  four  years  preceding  the  long  em- 
bargo, which  was  the  first  interruption  of  the  free  trade  policy  ; 
though  that  law  was  intended  as  a  conservative  measure,  and  not  as 
an  act  designed  perpetually  to  lessen  and  finally  to  annihilate  com- 
merce. 

By  the  official  tables  from  1804  to  1807  inclusive,  the  average 
amount  of  exports  is  found  to  be  95,786,302  dollars.  The  imports 
not  having  been  annually  reported,  we  are  unable  to  ascertain  their 
amount  for  that  entire  period  ;  but  from  1799  to  1801  inclusive,  they 
averaged  93,895,142  dollars.  The  average  of  population  during 
this  period  was  something  under  six  and  a  half  millions. 

'I  lie  population  in  1H30  was  thirteen  millions,  while  our  exports 
have  declined  below  74,000,000  dollars,  and  our  imports  to  some- 


15 

thing  less  than  7 1 ,000,000  dollars.  Yet  we  are  told  by  the  New  York 
Convention,  by  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Carey,  Mr.  Niles,  Mr.  Everett  and 
other  leading  opponents  of  the  free  trade  system,  that  the  predictions  of 
the  national  party,  who  foretold  the  ruinous  consequences  of  the 
"  American  System"  upon  our  foreign  commerce,  have  all  been 
falsified. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  years  selected  by  us  were  uncom- 
monly prosperous,  and  not  to  be  taken  as  a  true  criterion  of  the  gen- 
eral state  of  our  commerce.  We  will  then  go  back  to  the  com- 
mencement of  the  century,  and  we  shall  find  the  average  amount 
of  exports,  from  1800  down  to  1807,  the  year  when  our  commerce 
was  suspended  by  the  embargo,  to  be  84,564,513  dollars,  with  about 
six  millions  of  inhabitants,  and  incomparably  less  proportionate  means 
than  are  enjoyed  at  this  time,  for  the  production  and  consumption  of 
all  the  comforts  and  superfluities  of  life,  on  which  an  import  and 
export  trade  must  chiefly  depend. 

We  have  said  that  our  exports  should  increase  somewhat  in  pro- 
portion to  our  increasing  wealth  and  population.  The  latter  has 
doubled  since  our  exports  amounted  to  84,564,513  dollars.  In  re- 
gard to  the  increase  of  wealth,  we  have  no  means  of  estimating  it 
exactly ;  but  we  are  prepared  to  appeal  to  any  man  of  observation, 
who  has  lived  long  enough  to  make  the  comparison,  whether  it  can 
be  doubted  that  the  great  mass  of  the  people  have  increased  means 
of  supplying  themselves  with  the  necessaries,  comforts  and  luxuries 
of  life,  from  the  productions  of  our  soil  and  industry,  compared  with 
what  they  enjoyed  25  years  ago,  although  restricted  and  oppressed, 
for  some  years  past,  by  impolitic  and  unjust  enactments,  which  have 
deprived  them  of  a  considerable  portion  of  their  earnings.  In  other 
words,  we  contend  that,  not  only  has  population  doubled  since  we  ex- 
ported 84,564,513  dollars,  but  the  wants  of  the  people  have  doubled, 
and  they  have  twice  the  means  of  satisfying  those  wants,  which  they 
possessed  25  years  ago; — consequently, our  export  trade,  had  it  not 
been  "protected"  by  the  contrivances  of  manufacturers,  legislators 
and  politicians,  would  by  this  time  have  been  greatly  augmented. 

This  augmentation  should  be  somewhat  in  proportion  to  our  in- 
creasing wealth,  intelligence,  and  population  ;  but  the  precise  ex- 
tent of  it  must,  in  some  degree,  be  matter  of  conjecture. 

There  are,  however,  some  data  on  which  a  judgment  may  be  found- 
ed, that  we  apprehend  will  be  satisfactory  to  the  reasonable  and 
candid  inquirer ;  and  with  this  view  let  us  turn  back  and  pursue 
our  inquiries  as  far  as  official  statements  extend,  that  we  may  see 
the  rate  at  which  our  export  commerce  increased,  while  the  nation 
was  governed,  in  her  commercial  laws,  by  those  just,  liberal,  and 
patriotic  principles,  on  which  the  free  trade  policy  is  founded. 

The  table  of  exports  commences  in  1790.  The  average  amount 
for  1790  and  1791,  was  19,608,598  dollars. 

KO.    IX.  3 


16 

At  this  period  the  government  had  just  been  organized,  and  was 
hardly  enough  confirmed  and  settled  to  give  confidence  in  its  stabil- 
ity. The  country  had  been  exhausted  by  the  expensive  and  severe 
contest  with  Great  Britain,  added  to  which,  the  public  debt  bore 
with  great  severity  upon  the  nation,  destitute,  as  she  was,  of  the 
means  of  meeting  the  ordinary  expenditure  of  government.  We 
were,  too,  deprived  of  the  aid  of  foreign  capital,  which  our  subse- 
quent prosperity  has  enabled  our  citizens  to  avail  themselves  of,  to 
the  manifest  benefit  of  the  country.  Still,  such  loans  have  been  con- 
stantly denounced  as  unpatriotic  as  well  as  unprofitable,  by  the 
leading  partisans  and  advocates  of  the  anti-national,  or,  as  it  is  often 
called,  the  "American  System." 

Under  such  circumstances,  our  commerce  at  first  advanced  slowly. 
The  average  of  our  exports  for  1791,  1792  and  1793,  was  only 
21,958,237  dollars.  From  the  last  mentioned  year,  however,  they 
began  to  rise  rapidly,  and  in  1795  amounted  to  47,989,472  dollars  j 
and  at  the  end  of  the  century  had  advanced  to  78,665,522  dollars. 
This  is  nearly  quadrupling  in  10  years.  But  it  could  not  be  ex- 
pected, after  having  arrived  at  the  full  benefit  of  the  change  from 
an  unsettled  government  to  a  well  established  one,  and  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  a  credit  abroad,  that  we  should  still  go  on  increasing  at  this 
extraordinary  rate.  We  will,  then,  take  the  medium  of  our  exports 
from  1791  to  1799,  making  nine  years  ;  and  we  find  the  amount  to 
be  45,666,371  dollars.  We  will  also  take  the  average  of  our  ex- 
ports from  1800  to  1807,  being  eight  years  preceding  the  interrup- 
tion of  our  trade  by  the  embargo,  and  we  find  the  amount  to  be 
84,564,513  dollars. 

If,  then,  we  compare  the  average  of  our  exports  for  the  first  nine 
years  of  our  free  trade  policy,  amounting  to  45,666,371  dollars? 
with  the  average  of  the  succeeding  eight  years  ending  with  1807, 
(at  which  time  our  commerce  was  interrupted  by  the  embargo) 
amounting  to  84.564,513  dollars,  we  have  an  increase,  in  eight 
years,  of  Qb  per  cent.;  and  during  these  two  periods  our  population 
had  risen  from  about  four  and  a  half  to  about  six  millions. 

Now  we  are  ready  to  confess  that  this  statement  presents  too  fa- 
vorable a  view  fairly  to  represent  the  ordinary  progress  of  our  com- 
mercial growth.  We  admit,  that,  in  addition  to  the  advantages  we 
then  enjoyed  from  a  government  administered  upon  those  princi- 
ples of  justice  and  sound  policy  which  have  been  deserted  or  viola- 
ted by  succeeding  administrations  and  legislatures,  there  were  other 
causes  in  operation,  which  had  a  tendency  to  increase  the  demand 
for  our  productions  and  enhance  their  value.  We  allude  particu- 
larly to  the  wars  and  revolutions  in  Europe,  which,  by  interrupting 
the  usual  course  of  labor,  created  a  greater  dependence  upon  some 
of  our  productions,  than  can  ordinarily  exist  under  a  more  settled 
state  of  affairs. 


1? 

While  we  are  disposed,  however,  to  make  the  most  liberal  allow- 
ance for  all  the  commercial  benefits  we  may  have  derived  from  the 
causes  referred  to,  it  should  be  recollected,  that  the  embargoes,  re- 
strictions and  war  at  home,  as  well  as  the  injuries  inflicted  upon  us 
by  all  the  belligerents,  constitute  a  great  abatement  from  those  ad- 
vantages }  so  that  it  is  rather  questionable,  according  to  our  view 
of  the  matter,  whether  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  this  country 
really  gained  by  the  wars  in  Europe.  Still,  in  discussing  this  question, 
we  shall,  in  accordance  with  the  prevailing  belief,  reason  upon  the 
supposition,  that  our  commerce  and  navigation  could  not  have  con- 
tinued to  increase  in  the  ratio  they  did  from  1791  to  1807,  even 
had  our  commercial  policy  not  been  changed  from  the  free  trade  to 
the  restrictive  system. 

The  position  of  our  opponents  is,  that  our  foreign  commerce,  in- 
stead of  being  lessened  by  the  restrictive  system,  has  in  fact  been 
extended  by  it.  This  we  have  indirectly  refuted  ;  first,  by  showing 
a  decline  of  the  tonnage  employed  in  the  foreign  trade  since  1817, 
from  809,724  to  650,142  tons;  and  again,  by  furnishing  satisfacto- 
ry reasons  to  show  that  a  continuance  of  the  free  trade  policy  would, 
by  this  time,  have  extended  that  branch  of  our  navigation  to 
1,100,000  tons. 

We  have,  however,  given  a  more  positive  and  direct  refutation  of 
this  gross  misrepresentation  by  reference  to  official  documents,  show- 
ing that  our  exports  have  declined  since  the  first  protecting  act 
went  into  operation,  from  87,G24,385  dollars  to  73;  104,089  dollars. 

The  question  now  is,  what  would  have  been  the  amount  of  our  ex- 
ports, at  this  period,  had  we  persevered  in  the  free  trade  policy  ? 
The  increase  of  exportations  from  1790  to  1799,  as  we  have  shown, 
was  nearly  400  per  cent.  From  1800  to  1807,  when  our  com- 
merce may  be  considered  to  have  been  in  its  natural  state,  the  in- 
crease was  85  per  cent,  in  8  years:  namely,  from  45,606,371  dol- 
lars, the  average  of  1791  to  1799,  to  84,564,513  dollars,  the  aver- 
age of  the  8  succeeding  years,  terminating  with  1807,  and  this  was 
the  last  year  in  which  the  nation  enjoyed  a  commerce  wholly  unob- 
structed. 

With  these  undeniable  facts  in  view,  we  appeal  to  every  reflecting 
and  unprejudiced  mind,  whether  it  is  possible  to  resist  the  conviction, 
that  a  system,  which,  in  the  first  9  years  from  its  origin,  nearly 
quadrupled  our  exports,  and  in  the  subsequent  8  years  raised  them 
from  45  to  85  millions,  while  our  population  increased  from  four  and 
a  hall  to  six  millions,  should  not,  in  25  years,  with  an  increase  of  pop- 
ulation from  six  to  thirteen  millions,  have  augmented  our  exports  at 
least  50  per  cent,  beyond  the  average  of  the  8  years  preceding  the 
embargo  ? 

It  such  is  the  conclusion  to  which  our  facts  and  reasonings  lead, 
(and  we  think  no  intelligent  and  impartial  mind  can  dissent  from  it) 


18 

then  It  is  certain  that  our  exports,  but  for  the  pernicious  effects  of 
the  "American  System,"  would  have  increased  to  128  millions,  in- 
stead of  having  declined  to  72,824,288  dollars,  being  the  average 
amount  of  exportations  for  the  last  three  years. 

The  diminution,  then,  which  the  country  has  sustained  in  this 
single  branch  of  industry,  by  a  system  which  professes  to  encourage 
domestic  labor,  is,  at  least,  55  millions  per  annum;  that  sum  being 
the  difference  between  the  average  of  our  exports  the  last  three  years 
and  what  we  should  have  exported,  under  a  continuance  of  the  com- 
mercial policy,  established  by  Washington  and  Hamilton,  and  per- 
severed in  by  Jefferson  and  Gallatin  ;  a  policy,  not  resting  for  its 
basis  upon  artificial,  absurd  and  unjust  regulations,  which  restrain, 
control  and  tax*  the  pursuits  of  nine-tenths  of  the  nation,  for  the  ben- 
efit of  the  remaining  tenth,  but  a  policy  relying  for  its  support  on  the 
skill,  industry,  enterprise  and  intelligence  of  the  whole  nation,  whose 
welfare  it  was  designed  and  was  so  eminently  calculated  to  promote. 

While  this  country,  which  possesses  beyond  all  others  the  great- 
est advantages  for  the  accumulation  of  wealth,  and  which  increases 
in  population  at  least  three  times  as  fast  as  Great  Britain,  has  been  de- 
clining in  commerce  and  navigation,  that  nation  has  been  gaining  in 
a  greater  ratio  than  she  ever  had  before  done,  in  all  branches  of  her 
commerce  and  navigation.  From  an  official  statement  before  us  of 
the  exports  from  Great  Britain,  commencing  with  this  century,  we 
find  that  the  amount  in  1799,  was  £17,000,000. 

From  1800  a  1810,  the  average  value  was  -     £26,000,000 

1811  a  1820,              "              "  -             36,000,000 

1821  a  1826,             "              "  -       45,000,000 

1827,  the  amount,      -  -              51,000,000 

1828,  "  -  52,000,000 

1829,  "  -  -  55,000,000 

Now  if  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  the  statement  of  our  exports, 
he  will  find  that  the  average  amount  from  1800  to  1807,  8  years, 
was  84,564,513  dollars,  and  that  they  had  fallen  off,  by  the  average 
returns  for  the  3  last  years,  to  72,824,288  dollars. 

Thus,  while  the  export  trade  of  the  United  States  has  declined 
from  84  to  73  millions,  with  a  population  which  in  that  interval  has 
doubled,  Great  Britain,  in  a  shorter  period  of  time  and  with  less 
than  a  third  of  our  relative  increase  of  population,  has  more  than 
doubled  her  export  trade. 

"  "  Commerce,  though  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  nation,  is  nota  proper 
unbject  for  much  legislation.  It  is  only  to  be  protected  and  taxed  ;  it  should  be 
left  free  to  find  its  own  channels,  and  then  it  will  contribute  to  keep  up  a  salu- 
tary circulation  of  property,  and  take  only  those  directions  in  which  the  people 
have  some  real  advantages  over  others  in  carrying  it  on,  and  consequently  will 
be  a  safe  part  of  the  general  economy." — JVorth  American  Review. 


19 

What,  we  would  again  ask,  is  the  reason  why  a  nation,  enjoying 
fewer  advantages  from  soil  and  geographical  position  than  we  do, 
and  burdened  with  ten  times  the  relative  amount  of  public  expen- 
diture, should  add  100  per  cent,  to  her  exports,  while  the  exports  of 
this  nation  have  been  constantly  decreasing? 

To  those  who  have  been  attentive  spectators  of  passing  events, 
since  the  adoption  of  the  anti-commercial  system,  the  reasons  for  the 
decline  in  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  this  country,  and  for  an 
increase  in  those  branches  of  business  in  Great  Britain  during  the 
same  period,  are  sufficiently  obvious. 

The  government  of  Great  Britain,  since  the  restoration  of  the 
world  to  peace  enabled  her  enlightened  statesmen  to  direct  their  at- 
tention to  the  internal  concerns  of  that  empire,  has  been  gradually 
removing  the  obstructions  and  restraints,  accumulated  by  1000 
years  of  vicious  legislation,  from  her  commerce,  navigation  and  all 
other  branches  of  industry.  The  result  has  been,  increased  produc- 
tion and  increased  consumption,  leading  necessarily  to  an  extension 
of  commerce  and  navigation,  the  sure  indication  of  increased  wealth, 
always  attendant  upon  a  liberal  system  of  commercial  regulations, 
whether  under  a  monarchy  or  a  republic. 

Our  government,  on  the  other  hand,  regardless  of  the  natural  rights 
of  man,  the  principles  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  example  of  their 
more  enlightened  predecessors  in  office,  have,  during  the  same  pe- 
riod, restricted  and  taxed  most  of  the  great  branches  of  industry  for 
the  purpose  of  encouraging  certain  occupations,  which  can  bene- 
fit only  a  few  thousand  wealthy  individuals,  who  have  had  the  art  to 
delude  a  considerable  portion  of  the  people  into  the  support  of  a  sys- 
tem injurious  to  all  interests  but  their  own  •  for  it  cannot  be  de- 
nied, that,  from  the  origin  of  the  anti-commercial  policy,  the  action 
of  the  government,  as  regards  the  important  question  under  discus- 
sion, has  been  too  much  influenced,  if  not  controlled,  by  the  small 
but  zealous  combination  of  individuals  to  whom  we  have  referred, 
whose  power  to  make  or  unmake  an  administration,  to  gratify  or 
disappoint  the  views  of  ambitious  aspirants  to  office,  has  been  more 
feared  and  more  regarded  than  the  great  concerns  of  the  nation. 
The  rights  and  interests  of  the  people,  indeed,  have  been  in  a  great 
measure  deserted,  betrayed  and  sacrificed  by  those  who  contrived, 
and  who  still  manage  to  sustain,  the  existing  system.*     We  have 

"In  support  of  the  views  here  introduced  with  regard  to  the  conduct  and 
motives  of  the  part)-  to  which  we  refer,  the  following  remarks  are  extracted 
from  Mr.  Niles'  Register,  written  more  than  a  year  after  the  enactment  of 
the  Tariff*  of  1823.  "  The  act  of  1828,"  says  this  independent  and  honest 
journalist,  "  the  act  of  1^2-'  was  projected,  arranged,  and  passed,  on  princi- 
ples disreputable  to  a  Congress  of  the  United  States.  There  is  no  manner  of 
doubt  in  our  minds,  from  much  personal  observation  and  some  private 
knowledge,  that  it  was  the  result  of  a  political  comproinise  or  bargain. 

"  Indeed,  so  strongly  are  the  facts  presented  and  so  respectable  are  the  wit- 
nesses  to  the  case,  that  we  have  seriously  thought  of  directly  doing  some- 


20 

thus  proved  by  facts  that  will  not  be  denied,  and  by  arguments  which 
cannot  be  refuted,  unless  those  facts  are  disproved,  that  the  anti- 
commercial  system  now  in  operation  has  lessened  our  exports 
55,000,000  dollars  below  what  they  would  have  been  but  for  the 
establishment  of  that  system. 

Now,  if  it  be  true  that  our  exports  have  been  diminished,  it  neces- 
sarily follows  that  there  has  been  a  diminished  demand  for  our  ag- 
ricultural productions,  constituting,  as  they  do,  the  principal  value  of 
our  exports- 
Diminished  demand  leads  to  diminished  prices  ;  and  though  there 
have  been  other  causes  in  operation  to  lower  the  value  of  our  agri- 
cultural staples,  yet  one  of  the  most  operative  has  been  the  existing 
system  of  taxation  and  restriction. 

thing,  for  which,  being  prosecuted,  we  might  bring  proof  before  a  court  of  justice, 
as  to  the  thing  suggested." 

This  is  a  bold  denunciation  of  the  majority  who  made  up  the  Congress  of 
1823,  but  we  fear  there  is  too  much  truth  in  the  character  which  is  here  given 
of  them — by  a  man,  too,  who  is  probably  more  in  the  confidence  of  the  persons 
who  composed  that  majority  and  of  those  who  influenced  their  movements,  than 
any  other  individual  whatever.  Instead  of  meeting  together  to  guard  and  pro- 
mote the  general  welfare,  their  whole  object  appeared  to  be,  to  see  who  should 
show  the  most  zeal  and  forwardness  in  burdening  the  country  with  monopolies 
and  taxation  for  the  benefit  of  the  wealthy  and  favoured  classes  ;  the  surest 
means,  perhaps,  of  gratifying  that  thirst  for  popularity  and  power,  which  distin- 
guishes the  unprincipled  mischievous  demagogue  from  the  high-minded  pat- 
riotic statesman.  We  believe,  however,  there  were  exceptions  to  the  character 
here  given  by  Mr.  Niles  of  the  majority  by  whose  efforts  the  act  of  1828  was 
passed  ;  but  we  fear  the  censure  he  bestows  upon  them,  is,  in  many  instances, 
justly  merited. 

The  following  are  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Jefferson  in  regard  to  the  Congress 
that  enacted  the  Tariff  of  1821,  which,  in  common  with  the  act  of  1828,  has 
generally  been  pronounced  by  intelligent  men  (save  those  who  are  benefited  by 
its  operation^,  either  as  exhibiting  a  gross  abuse  of  power,  or  a  palpable  viola- 
tion of  the  Constitution.  "  Under  the  authority  to  establish  post-roads,"  says 
Mr.  Jefferson,  "  they  claim  that  of  cutting  down  mountains  for  the  construction 
of  roads,  and,  aided  by  a  little  sophistry  on  the  words  '  general  welfare,'  a  right 
to  do  not  only  the  acts  to  effect  that,  which  are  specifically  enumerated  and  per- 
mitted, but  whatever  they  shall  think  or  pretend  will  be  for  the  general  welfare  : 
and  what  is  our  resource  for  the  preservation  of  the  Constitution  ?  Reason  and 
argument?  You  might  as  well  reason  and  argue  with  the  marble  columns  en- 
circling them  ! — The  representatives  chosen  by  ourselves,  they  are  joined  in  the 
combination,  some  from  incorrect  views  of  government,  and  some  from  corrupt 
ones,  sufficient,  voting  together,  to  outnumber  the  sound  parts,  and  with  major- 
ities of  only  1,2,3,  bold  enough  to  go  forward  in  defiance."  Here  is  the 
opinion  of  an  impartial  and  experienced  statesman,  well  acquainted  with  the 
corrupting  influences  which  are  brought  to  bear  upon  legislative  bodies,  wheth- 
er in  monarchies  or  republics,  as  to  the  motives  which  must  have  influenced 
many,  who  voted  for  the  act  of  1824 — an  act  which  was  deemed  by  the  author 
of  the  declaration  of  our  independence,  as  not  only  inexpedient,  oppressive,  and 
unjust,  but  as  unconstitutional;  and  in  this  opinion  he  is  sustained  by  some  of 
the  ablest  men  who  are  now  on  the  side  of  the  restrictive  system,  and  who 
themselves,  in  1824,  denounced  any  ratio  of  taxation  on  imports,  imposed 
for  any  other  object  than  revenue,  tlas  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  our 
Constitution  inn!  of  sound  policy."  If  the  gentlemen,  to  whom  we  refer,  have, 
as  is  alleged,  Bince  thai  period  changed  their  opinions,  they  have  not  refuted 
their  own  arguments ;  and  till  that  is  done,  they  may  be  cited  as  authorities  in 
support  of  the  doctrines  always  sustained  by  Washington,  Adams  and  Jeffer- 
on,  and  once  maintained  by  Madison. 


21 

But  it  is  maintained  by  the  restrictionists,  that  if  it  be  the  effect 
of  their  exclusive  system  to  lessen  and  annihilate  the  foreign  demand 
for  our  agricultural  staples,  the  farmers  and  planters  find  an  increas- 
ed demand  in  the  home  market. 

That  this  is  true  of  some  few  articles,  no  one  can  deny.  But  will 
the  increased  domestic  demand  for  the  supply  of  thirteen  millions 
of  people  with  cotton,  rice,  tobacco,  naval  stores,  lumber,  wheat, 
&c.  on  which  three-fourths  of  the  nation  depend  for  support,  be  any 
compensation  for  the  diminished  demand  of  two,  three  or  four  hun- 
dred millions  of  people  ? 

"  We  will  give  you  the  home  market  instead  of  the  distant  and  un- 
certain foreign  market,"  is  the  cry  of  the  restrictionists.  The  home 
market  the  farmers  and  planters  must  have,  nearly  to  the  extent 
they  now  enjoy,  under  any  system ;  but  if  it  were  otherwise,  will  it 
be  pretended  that  the  market  of  one  nation  is  equal  to  the  markets 
of  the  whole  world  ?     Yet  such  are  the  absurd  replies*  made  to  the 

*  The  Philadelphia  resolutions  referred  to,  maintained  that  the  Southern  States 
are  compensated  for  the  taxation  imposed  on  them,  and  the  loss  of  a  foreign  de- 
mand for  their  produce,  by  an  increased  home  demand.  "  A  large  and  rapidly 
increasing  market  for  their  superabundant  cotton  cannot  injure  its  produce." 
The  New  York  Convention  also  hold  the  tame  language.  "  It  has  created  (the 
Tariff  system)  a  certain  and  valuable  market  for  about  one-fifth  of  its  crop,  and 
it  has  encouraged  the  consumption  of  large  quantities  of  their  staple  in  fabrics, 
to  which  it  never  would  have  been  applied  if  the  manufacture  had  not  been 
carried  on  in  our  own  country."  The  whole  produce  of  cotton  may  now  be 
estimated  at  1,100,000  bales  ;  the  consumption  at  the  utmost  175,000  bales 
the  export  025,000  bales.  Of  the  quantity  consumed  about  25,000  bales  may  be 
considered  as  dependent  on  high  duties.  But  if  the  whole  consumption  de- 
pended on  high  duties,  it  would  not  be  diminished  by  a  reduction  of  them,  since 
we  should  get  our  cotton  fabrics  at  a  lower  rate,  and  made  of  the  same  material. 
The  consumption,  therefore,  of  American  raw  cotton  would  be  increased  rather 
than  diminished. 

The  greatest  hostility  has  been  exhibited  against  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain. 
The  cheap  productions  of  that  country  interfere  with  similar  protected  articles, 
and  consequently  the  <:  American  System"  cannot  be  completely  established 
till  that  branch  of  trade  is  annihilated.  Yet,  as  we  have  already  shown,  we 
find  a  greater  market  in  Great  Britain  and  her  colonies  for  our  domestic  produc- 
tions than  in  all  other  parts  of  the  world.  Of  Northern  productions  exported 
to  that  country  we  have  already  given  an  estimate.  The  following  statement 
shows  the  comparative  annual  exportations  of  Southern  produce  to  Great  Britain 
and  her  colonies  and  all  other  parts  of  the  world.  We  have  taken  the  average 
of  the  last  17  years  from  1824  to  1830  inclusive. 

Annual  Exports  to  Great  Britain  ami  hor  Colonies.  All  other  Parts  of  tlio  World. 

Cotton,             -            -         -         $19,505,038  -            -            -          $7,911,500 

Naval  Stores,          -         -            -         302,239  -            -             -           46,664 

Tobacco,            -        -            -           2,295,916  -            -            -           3,237,630 

Rice,           ....        514,508  -            -            -      1,055,699 

Snurl'and  unmanu-7                           1(1o   ins  174 

factured  Tobacco,  5          *                103,996  -             ...          10e,l/4 


$22,781,697        -  -  -        $12,959,733 

These  staples  are  paid  for  in  the  productions  of  Great  Britain,  which  it  is   the 

object  of  the  "American  System"  to  exclude.  As  far  as  that  object  can  be  accom- 


22 

complaints  of  millions  of  agricultural  citizens,  who  are  suffering  under 
this  system,  by  those,  who,  while  they  enjoy  its  benefi  ts,escape  its 
burdens. 

plished,  just  so  far  will  Great  Britain  be  compelled  to  seek  similar  productions 
in  those  countries  where  her  goods  will  be  received  in  exchange. 

The  average  amountof  our  exportation  of  domestic  products  to  Great  Britain  and 
her  colonies  for  the  last  7  years,  is  upwards  of  28  millions  ;  and  it  would  have 
been  much  greater  but  for  the  high  duty  system.  Is  it  surprising,  then,  that 
the  agricultural  States,  which  depend  so  largely  upon  Great  Britain  for  a  mar- 
ket for  their  staples,  should  complain  of  a  system,  which,  when  carried  fully  into 
operation,  will  deprive  them  almost  entirely  of  a  sale  for  their  products? 


No.   10. 


THE  EFFECTS  OF  THE 

ANTI-COMMERCIAL    SYSTEM 
UPON  THE  PUBLIC  REVENUE. 


We  have  now  arrived  at  the  fourth  and  last  proposition  of  our 
opponents,  which  we  have  undertaken  to  examine;  namely,  that 
the  puhlic  revenue  has  heen  augmented  hy  the  protecting  system. 
"  It  was  ohjected  to  ihe  American  System,"  says  Mr.  Clay,  in  die 
letter  before  cited,  "  that  it  would  dry  up  the  sources  of  revenue. 
The  revenue  has  been  increased."  Again,  the  Philadelphia  Reso- 
lutions of  September  last,  to  which  we  have  before  referred,  assert, 
that  "  the  greatest  of  all  delusive  learnings  against  the  acts  to  pro- 
tect manufactures,  was,  that  they  would  inevitably  reduce  the  reve- 
nue, and  lead  to  direct  taxation.  Their  effect  has  been  to  increase 
the  revenue  to  a  great  amount." 

We  here  and  elsewhere  have  it  affirmed,  in  the  most  positive  and 
direct  terms, by  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Everett,  the  Philadelphia  Resolutions 
and  the  New  York  Convention,  that  the  public  revenue  has  been 
increased  since  the  protecting  system  commenced  ;  and  that  the  in- 
crease has  been  caused  by  an  abandonment  of  the  free  trade  policy 
for  what  is  termed  the  "  American  System." 

Before  we  proceed  to  an  examination  of  this  statement,  we  would 
repeat  the  remark  before  made  relative  to  tonnage  and  exports  ; 
namely,  that  the  revenue  of  a  country  must  have  reference  to  its 
population,  so  that  the  increase  of  the  former  should  be  somewhat 
in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  die  latter.  Suppose,  lor  instance,  the 
population  at  any  given  period  to  be  9,000,000,  and  that  there 
should  he  a  revenue  of  27,000,000,  equal  to  three  dollars  per  head. 
Then,  if  it  can  be  shown  that  an  increase  at  a  subsequent  period  to 
12,000,000  had  also  raised  the  revenue  in  the  same  proportion, 
viz.  to  36,000,000,  it  might  truly  he  affirmed  that  the  public  revenue 
had  not  declined.     On  the  other  hand,  if  while  population  has  in- 


2 

creased  one  third,  the  revenue  shall  have  continued  stationary,  or  at 
27,000,000,  then  it  will  not  be  denied  that  the  revenue  has  declin- 
ed ;  or  that,  from  some  cause  or  other,  it  is  less  productive  than  it 
formerly  was,  in  the  ratio  of  25  per  cent,  per  annum,  equal  to  75 
cents  per  head.  In  other  words,  if  with  a  p  pulation  of  9,000,000, 
the  public  revenue  should  be  27,000,000,  and  if  it  still  continues 
at  that  sum  when  the  population  has  increased  lo  12,000,000,  in- 
stead of  being  raised  to  36,000,000,  as  it  must  have  been  had  the 
revenue  been  as  productive  at  the  latter  period  as  at  the  former  ; 
then  it  is  clearly  proved  that  there  has  been  a  decline  in  the  rev- 
enue of  9,000,000  per  annum. 

The  proposition,  however,  of  our  opponents,  is,  that  the  public  rev- 
enue has  increased  since  the  first  protecting  tariff  of  1816.  The 
object  of  the  restrictive,  or  anti-commercial  system,  is  to  impose 
duties, — not  for  the  purposes  of  revenue,  but  for  prohibition,  at  least 
of  such  articles  as  are  produced  or  manufactured  by  certain  favored 
classes,  for  whose  benefit  the  system  is  maintained.  We  say  class- 
es ;  yet  the  number  of  persons  actually  benefited  by  the  existing 
system  cannot  probably  exceed  10,000.  But  such  has  been  the  in- 
fluence of  wealth  on  all  legislative  matters,  except  mere  party  ques- 
tions, that  this  zealous  and  well-organized  coalition  of  capitalists  and 
politicians  has  had  more  influence  in  Congress,  since  1816,  than 
the  whole  body  of  planters,  farmers,  merchants  and  mechanics  in 
the  Union,  all  of  whose  interests  have  been  neglected  or  sacrificed, 
to  avert  the  enmity,  or  to  gain  the  favor,  of  this  all-powerful  com- 
bination. 

The  belief  that  extreme  duties  would  produce  a  proportionate 
augmentation  of  revenue  has  been  propagated,  with  much  earnest- 
ness, by  the  partisans  of  the  restrictive  system,  with  the  obvious  de- 
sign to  reconcile  the  nation  to  a  burdensome  taxation.  But  it  is  the 
necessary  <  fleet  of  high  duties  to  diminish  consumption,  and  conse- 
quently, by  reducing  the  amount  of  commodities  imported,  to  les- 
sen the  revenue. 

Now,  that  such  must  have  been  the  object  of  the  anti-commercial 
system,  will  be  apparent  to  every  considerate  mind  ;  since  the  only 
benefit  the  favored  classes  could  derive  from  its  operation,  must 
arise  from  its  diminishing  the  amount  of  those  foreign  importations, 
the  duties  on  which  constituted  the  best  portion  of  our  revenue. 

One  would  imagine,  that  the  bare  statement  of  this  self-evident 
proposition,  viz.  that  to  cut  off  some  of  the  most  fruitful  sources 
of  revenue  would  diminish  its  amount,  must  force  conviction  upon 
every  mind.  But  so  infatuating  are  the  doctrines  of  the  high  duty 
system  to  most  minds,  that  nothing  short  of  mathematical  demon- 
station  will  convince  its  deluded  supporters  of  the  gross  misrepre- 
sentations and  unsound  reasonings  continually  brought  forward  in  its 
defence. 


3 

Every  intelligent  and  impartial  seeker  after  truth,  must,  we  think, 
be  surprised  at  the  withholding  of  facts,  on  the  part  of  our  oppo- 
nents, in  support  of  the  assertion  that  the  revenue  has  increased. 
The  returns  of  the  annual  revenue  from  the  customs  are  regularly 
laid  before  the  nation,  and  documents  could  have  been  referred  to, 
at  any  time,  or  any  place,  that  would  have  substantiated  the  truth 
of  the  declaration  in  question,  had  it  been  true,  and  thus  have  fur- 
nished the  most  unanswerable  evidence  in  favor  of  their  own  posi- 
tion, and  in  refutation  of  that  of  the  advocates  of  the  national  in- 
terests, who  predicted  a  decline  in  the  public  revenue. 

This,  we  repeat,  is  a  mere  question  of  fact,  which  can  best  be  an- 
swered by  an  official  statement  of  the  revenue  returns  from  1815, 
the  first  year  after  the  peace,  down  to  the  last  published  returns  for 
the  year  1S30.  But  facts,  however  accessible  to  the  advocates  of 
monopolies  and  restrictions,  are,  as  we  have  before  shown,  most 
carefully  avoided,  since  their's  is  a  cause  which  never  can  be  sus- 
tained, without  either  a  concealment  of  facts,  or  a  gross  perversion 
of  them. 

Let  us,  then,  who  advocate  a  cause  which  courts  a  recurrence  to 
facts,  instead  of  shunning  them,  once  more  bring  the  assertions  of 
our  adversaries,  to  the  test  of  facts  ;  and,  for  this  purpose,  we  shall 
present  the  reader  with  a  statement  from  ihe  "  Banner  of  the  Con- 
stitution," with  the  comments  of  its  editor,  Mr.  Raguet,  to  whom 
the  national  party  are  so  much  indebted  for  his  efficient  labors  in  the 
cause  of  free  trade,  constitutional  rights,  and  constitutional  principles. 
It  is  the  best  explanation  that  can  be  given  of  this  subject,  and  will 
have  greater  weight  than  any  thing  we  can  say,  coining  as  it  does 
from  the  pen  of  one,  who,  as  a  theoretical  and  practical  writer,  has 
given  more  clear  and  satisfactory  expositions  in  defence  of  the  doc- 
trines of  free  trade,  than  any  author  with  whose  writings  we  are  ac- 
quainted. This  independent  and  able  journalist  has  exposed  the 
misrepresentations  of  the  restrictionists,  detected  their  fallacies^ 
refuted  their  arguments,  and  laid  open  to  the  comprehension  of  ev-' 
ery  mind,  the  injustice  and  absurdity  of  the  "  American  System," 
in  all  its  bearings ;  and  had  the  results  of  his  labors  been  as  carefully 
circulated  through  the  country,  as  the  leading  publications  on  the 
side  of  monopoly  and  restriction,  the  cause  of  truth  would,  before 
this  time,  have  triumphed  over  that  of  ignorance,  error  and  injustice.. 

"The  following  table,"  says  the  Banner  of  the  Constitution,  "  ex- 
hibits the  net  revenue,  derived  from  commerce  in  the  sixteen  years 
specified,  brought  down  to  the  latest  year  of  which  any  report  baa 
been  published,  omitting  the  fractions  of  a  dollar  : — 

1815,     $30,306,022  Free  trade  after  the  War. 

18K),     £27,484,100  Same. 

1817,     #17,524,775  Tar'.ffof  181G  in  operation* 


1818,  $21,828,451  Tariff  of  18 16  in  operation. 

1819,  $17,116,702  Same. 

1820,  $12,449,556  Same — predictions  of  free  trade  ad- 

vocates fully  verified. 

1821,  $15;S98,434  Country  beginning  to  recover. 

1822,  $20,500,775  ^        Natural    causes  of    prosperity    over- 

1823,  $17,00S,570  \  powering  the   retarding    operation 
1.-24,     $20,385,430^            of  the  tariff. 

1825,  $24,358,202  Tariff  ol    1824  not  yet  in  full  opera- 

tion. 

1826,  $20,248,054  Tariff  of  1824  in  operation  this  year. 

1827,  $22,472,067  Country   recovering  from  the  effects 

of  the  act  of  1824. 

1828,  $24,969,812  Same. 

1829,  $22,192,879  \        Thrown  back  again  by  the  operation 

1830,  $21,922,391  $        of  the  Tariff  of  1828. 

"  It  thus  appears,  that  in  every  instance,  the  new  Tariff  diminished 
the  revenue.  But,  as  the  credits  given  on  the  duties  threw  the  pay- 
ments to  a  later  period,  and  as  it  took  time  for  the  merchants  to 
find  out,  by  dear-bought  experience,  that  the  increased  duties  dimin- 
ished the  consumption  of  goods,  the  effects  were  not  visible  until 
a  year  or  two  after  the  respective  laws  were  passed. 

"  By  the  different  censuses  ol  the  United  States,  it  appears  that  the 
population  sto^d  as  follows  : — 

1810,         ...         -  7,230,903 

1820,         -  9,637,999 

1830,         -  12,856,165 

"  Now,  if  we  take  the  first  two  years  in  the  above  table  of  reve- 
nue, which  probably  exhibit  something  near  what  would  have 
been  the  revenue  of  the  country,  had  the  restrictive  system  not 
been  adopted,  we  shall  have  an  average  revenue  of  31,895,061 
dollars.  But  we  are  willing  to  make  a  large  allowance  for  the  lact, 
that,  after  the  war,  an  unusual  extern  of  imports  was  called  lor  by 
the  Wants  of  the  country  ;  and  we  will  therefore  be  content  to  fix 
the  amount  of  revenue  at  25,500,000  dollars,  which  is  an  abatement 
of  upwards  of  six  millionsjper  annum.  Estimating,  then,  the  popula- 
tion at  8,500,000,  we  have  a  revenue  equal  to  three  dollars  per  head  on 
the  whole  population.  Taking  the  last  two  years  in  the  table,  and  in- 
cluding one  during  which  the  fresh  restrictions  had  not  yet  operated, 
and  calling  the  population  only  12,000,000;  we  have  but  $1,96 
as  the  re\  enue  <  oll<  cted." 

We  think  this  will  be  considered,  I  y  all  impartial  men,  as  a  mod- 
erate und  just  view  of  the  effects  of  the  non-importation  policy  upon 


th  public  revenue,  which,  instead  of  being  maintained,  or  increased, 
as  is  affirmed  by  the  restrielionists,  li;is  actually  been  reduced  from 
three  dullard  to  less  tiian  two  dollars  per  head. 

Had  the  duties  established  in  18 1 G  been  upon  a  revenue  scale 
merely,  the  e  can  he  no  question,  that  the  duties  on  foreign  importa- 
tions would  have  been  more  than  three  do  lars  per  heat!.  For,  be>idt  s 
the  amount  of  goods  excluded,  by  which  a  portion  of  the  revenue 
was  cut  off,  the  government,  according  to  die  statement  of  the  man- 
ulacturers,  to  which  we  have  before  adverted,  has  been  deprived  of 
an  immense  amount  of  revenue  by  smuggling  and  by  fraudulent  en- 
tries, at  the  various  custom-houses  in  the  I  nion.  And  bow  can  it 
be  otherwise,  when  such  temptations  to  dishonesty  are  held  out  by 
the  government,  which,  in  truth,  offers  premiums  of  50  to  200  per 
cent,  for  smuggling  and  fraud,  in  a  country  that  has  5,000  miles  of 
frontier  territory,  and  to  the  borders  of  which,  on  the  northern  side, 
the  most  highly  taxed  articles  may  be  transported  for  5  per  cent,  on 
the  prime  cost  ? 

To  know,  then,  what  has  been  the  loss  of  revenue  incident  to 
the  tariffs  established  since  1816,  it  is  only  necessary  to  estimate 
the  free  trade  revenue  at  three  dollars  per  head, on  our  population,  from 
time  to  time,  and  the  difference  between  that  sum  and  the  amount 
actually  collected,  is  the  diminution  of  public  revenue,  consequent 
upon  the  establishment  of  the  "  American  System."  For  instance, 
thepopulationof  1820  being  9,637,900,  the  revenue  should  have  been 
29,000,000;  whereas  it  was  only  12,500,000.  Again,  the  aver- 
age population  from  1825  to  1829  inclusive,  was  about  1  1,500,000, 
which  should  have  given  an  average  for  those  five  years  of  about 
34,500,000  ;  whereas,  by  the  table,  the  actual  revenue  averaged 
less  than  23,000,000. 

The  revenue  in  1831  and  1 832  will  reach  the  averageof  26,000,000, 
probably  27,000,000  ;  but  it  is  well  known  to  all  who  are  in  the 
way  of  such  information,  that  from  superabundant  harvests,  and 
from  the  reaction  which  succeeded  the  disastrous  mercantile  years 
of  1827,  1828  and  1829,  the  country  required  an  unusual  quantity 
of  foreign  goods;  and  the  revenue  of  1831  and  1832  will  therefore 
be  very  great  compared  with  the  preceding  years  of  1829  and  1830. 
Still,  however,  it  cannot  be  pretended  the  revenue  has  not  declined, 
since  we  have  proved,  on  the  most  moderate  estimate,  that  the  rev- 
enue of  1830,  1831  and  1832,  estimating  our  population  at  upwards 
of  1 3,000,000,  ought  to  average  for  these  three  years  more  than 
40,000,000. 

If,  then,  we  are  correct  in  our  data,  the  loss  of  revenue,  consequent 
upon  the  exclusive  system,  by  the  operation  of  the  protecting  acts 
from  1817  down  to  1832  inclusive,  making  16  years,  cannot  be  less 
than  12,000,000  per  annum ;  making  the  aggregate  amount  of 
192,000,000  of  dollars,  which  is  just  so  much  tax  upon  the  nation  to 


enable  a  few  thousand  wealthy  men  to  pursue  particular  occupations, 
which  they  assert  will  not  be  sufficiently  profitable  without  the  aid 
of  such  enormous  protection.  This  is  the  object  of  the  "  American 
System,"  and  such  are  its  inevitable  consequences. 

The  a  mount  which  New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  Ohio  paid  of 
this  heavy  tax,  if  left  in  the  pockets  of  the  people,  from  whence  it 
was  drawn  by  legislative  contrivances — the  amount,  we  say,  these 
States  paid  of  this  tax,  would  be  equal  to  the  whole  of  the  expendi- 
ture upon  their  great  internal  improvements.  And  yet  this  is  only 
one  item  of  the  pecuniary  burden  imposed  on  the  people,  by  what 
is  termed,  though  falsely  so  termed,  the  "American  System." 


No.  11. 


THE  INEQUALITY  OF  THE 


HIGH    DUTY   SYSTEM, 


A3    REGARDS     THE     DIFFERENT     SECTIONS    OK     THE     COUNTRY. 


One  of  the  most  striking  and  odious  features  of  the  existing  sys- 
tem of  restrictions  and  taxation,  is  it  sectional  inequality.  It  must 
be  admitted,  even  by  those  who  really  approve  of  the  protecting 
policy,  that  the  Tariff  of  182S  makes  a  very  partial  distribution  of 
the  evils  and  the  benefits  of  the  system.* 

*  The  following  excellent  remarks  upon  the  impracticability  as  well  as  inexpedi- 
ency and  injustice  of  the  restrictive  system,  are  from  a  Memorial  against  tin-  Ta- 


than  they  are,  your  memorialists  would  respectfully  inquire,  whether  in  the 
present  condition  of  the  United  Stales  such  a  system  can  be  carried  into  effect, 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  attain  the  object  of  its  advocates.  It  is  quite  manifest 
that  any  course  of  policy,  or  any  system  of  measures,  however  ingeniously  de- 
vised and  combined,  which  should  place  the  great  branches  of  the  productive  in- 
dustry of  a  country  so  extensive,  and  embracing  such  a  variety  of  productions, 
oecupations  and  interests,  upon  an  artificial  basis,  by  the  enactment  of  laws  es- 
tablishing bounties,  prohibitions,  protecting  duties,  or  other  fiscal  regulations, 
must  depend  for  its  utility  and  efficacy  upon  the  permanency  and  exact  execu- 
tion of  those  laws.  Anv  legislative  measure  affording  an  artificial  encourage- 
ment to  the  appropriating  of  capital  and  the  attainment  of  skill,  in  any  depart- 
ment of  industry,  the  speedy  change  of  which  shall  render  such  capital  and  skill 
worthless,  or  greatly  impaired  in  value,  is  not  only  useless  but  pernicious. 

"  Such  is  the  vast  extent,  over  wlrl*cV  the  laws  of  the  United  States  operate, 
such  the  variety  of  soil,  climate  and  production,  such  the  diversity  in  the  con- 
dition of  society,  and  the  habits  and  pursuits  of  the   people,  that  in  general, 


2 

The  benefits  of  the  "  American  System  "  can  only  arise  from  the 
advantages  which  certain  favored  States  enjoy,  of  being  enabled 
by  acts  of  Congress,  to  compel  the  people  of  other  States  to  pur- 
chase their  manufactures  and  productions  at  20,  30  or  50  per  cent. 
beyond  what  articles  of  similar  quality  might  be  had  for  elsewhere, 
but  for  the  existence  of  those  acts.  Unless  this  were  the  operative 
effect  of  high  duties,  they  would  at  once  be  reduced  by  the  efforts 
of  that  party  for  whose  benefit  they  were  established,  and  by 
whose  influence  they  are  still  sustained  ;  because,  instead  of  being 
beneficial  to  their  interests,  they  would  be  injurious  to  them. 

there  can  be  no  community  of  interest,  in  any  one  branch  of  industry,  seeking 
and  deriving  protection  from  an  artificial  system.  It  may  happen  that  combina- 
tions of  particular  interests  may  be  occasionally  formed,  sufficient  to  produce  a  pow- 
erful influence,  and  perhaps,  For  a  lime,  engage  a  majority  of  the  people  in  their 
favor.  Still  in  each  particular  case,  except  perhaps  in  the  production  of  a  few 
articles,  which,  in  the  event  of  war,  may  be  necessary  to  the  common  defence, 
that  actual  community  of  interest  is  wanting,  which  in  a  free  government  is  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  give  permanency  and  stability  to  any  course  of  legislative 
policy.  A  feeling  of  adverse  interest,  if  not  of  violated  right,  more  or  less  ex- 
tensive, must  create  open,  strong,  and  probably  concerted  opposition  to  such 
measures;  such  opposition  will  necessarily  lead  to  an  anticipation  of  an  early 
repeal  of  such  laws,  more  or  less  strung,  according  to  the  hopes  or  fears  of  those 
most  interested  ;  and  such  anticipation,  whether  well  or  ill  founded,  will  deter 
the  cautious  capitalist  from  investing  property  upon  the  branch  of  industry  de- 
pendent upon  such  law,  and  therefore  its  steady  and  permanent  operation  can- 
not be  realized.  It  may  not  be  inappropriate  in  this  connexion  to  add.  that  the 
popular  nature  and  character  of  our  political  institutions  are  such,  as  not  to  af- 
ford that  permanency  and  stability  to  any  legislative  system  of  protection, 
which  are  alike  necessary  to  its  efficiency  and  safety,  liy  the  theory  of  the 
Constitution,  the  whole  of  one,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  other  house  of  Con- 
gress is  changed  every  two  years;  and  in  point  of  practice,  even  where  elec- 
tions are  not  made  with  a  view  to  any  obnoxious  existing  laws,  it  is  believed 
that  from  one  third  to  one  half  of  the  members  are  changed  at  each  returning 
period  of  two  years. 

'•  These  various  causes,  which  may  so  effectually  disturb  the  operation  of  any 
protecting  duty,  in  its  effect  upon  prices,  together  with  the  constant  hazard  of 
re-action  and  change,  and  the  disastrous  consequences  which  would  result 
therefrom,  seem  to  lead  distinctly  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  protecting  system 
is  more  injurious  than  beneficial,  even  to  those  branches  of  industry,  which  it 
was  intended  to  encourage.  And  your  memorialists  would  farther  state  their 
belief,  that  many  of  the  best  informed  and  most  intelligent  manufacturers  are 
now  of  opinion,  that  a  relinquishment  of  the  protecting  policy,  and  a  return  to 
moderate  duties,  is  best  calculated  to  promote  the  steacy  growth  and  the  safe 
and  permanent  establishment  of  American  manufactures. 

"  The  unequal  action  of  any  protecting  duties,  upon  different  sections  of  the 
Union,  its  consequent  tendency  to  create  disaffection,  to  promote  and  embitter 
local  jealousies,  and  to  interrupt  that  harmony  throughout  the  Union,  which  is 
to  desirable  and  beneficial  to  all  its  parts,  are  consequences  too  obvious  and  too 
much  to  be  lamented,  to  require   more  than  a  passing  notice. 

"  Another  most  injurious  consequence  of"  the  protecting  and  restrictive  policy, 
proceeds  from  its  tendency  to  engage  the  nation  in  controversies  witli  other 
commercial  powers,  to  invite  and  encourage  retaliatory  restrictions  and  counter- 
vailing exactions  injurious  to  our  own  commerce,  and  most  of  all,  to  check  and 
retard  that  more  liberal  commercial  intercourse  among  nations  which  seemed 
to  be  rapidly  extending  throughout,  the  commercial  world,  and  which  it  seems 
bo  peculiarly  the  interest  of  the  United  States,  as  an  extensively  navigating 
power,  to  encourage  and  reciprocate." 


3 

That  the  Tariff  question  is  sectional*  in  its  operations,  is  evident 
from  the  support  given  to  it  in  some  entire  sections,  and  ilie  opposition 
which  is  made  to  it  in  others;  and  still  more  from  the  fact,  that  all 

*  The  pecuniary  evila  growing  out  of  tho  existing  system  of  monopolies, 
restrictions  and  taxation,  great  a^  they  have  been  Bhown  to  be,  are  of  minor  im- 
portance, compared  with  flic  moral  evils  arising  from  laws,  which,  it  if  admitted 
li\  ill-  m  'st  intelligent  of  their  supporters,  are  founded  on  unjust  principles,  and 
considered  by  a  still  larger  number  of  persons  as  unconstitutional.  The  follow- 
ing extract  from  an  article  in  the  Christian  Examiner,  exhibits  the  views  and 
feelings  of  one  of  the  most  enlightened  men  in  the  nation  upon  this  important 
and  dangerous  question.  We  mean  Dr.  Channing.  The  opinions  of  such  a  man, 
who,  having  no  pecuniar}',  political  or  party  views  to  sway  his  judgment,  looks 
at  the  subject  with  the  eve  of  a  philosopher  and  moralist,  are  deserving  of  seri- 
ous consideration,  and  will  no  doubt  have  great  weight  with  all  candid  and  im- 
partial men. 

"  A  restrictive  Tariff  is  necessarily  a  source  of  discord.  To  some  portions  of 
the  country  it  must  be  au  evil,  nor  will  they  sutFer  patiently.  Disadvanta- 
ges imposed  by  nature,  communities  will  bear  ;  but  not  those  which  are 
brought  on  them  by  legislation.  We  have,  indeed,  various  objections  to  tho 
whole  system  of  protection.  We  believe  it  to  be  deceptive  throughout.  We 
also  oppose  it,  on  the  ground  that  our  country,  in  adopting  it,  abandons  its 
true  and  honorable  position.  To  this  country,  above  all  others,  belongs,  as  its 
primary  duty  and  interest,  the  support  of  liberal  principles.  It  has  nothing  in 
its  institutions  congenial  with  the  maxims  of  barbarous  ages,  with  the  narrow, 
monopolizing,  restrictive  legislation  of  antiquated  despotisms.  Freedom,  in  all 
its  forms,  is  our  life,  strength  and  prosperity  ;  and  every  system  at  war  with  it, 
however  speciously  maintained,  is  a  contradiction  to  our  characters,  and,  wanting 
harmony  with  our  spirit,  must  take  something,  however  silently,  from  the  energy 
of  the  institutions  which  hold  us  together.  As  citizens  of  the  world,  we  grieve 
that  this  country  should  help  to  prolong  prejudices,  which  even  monarchy  is 
outgrowing;  should,  in  imitation  of  meddling  despotisms,  undertake  to  di- 
rect the  industry  and  capital  of  the  citizen,  and  especially  should  lose  sight  of 
that  sublime  object  of  philanthropy,  the  promotion  of  free,  unrestricted  com- 
merce through  the  world.  As  patriots,  we  grieve  that  a  precedent  has  been  af- 
forded for  a  kind  of  legislation,  which,  if  persisted  in,  will  almost  certainly  loos- 
en, and  may  rupture  the  Union.  The  principal  excellence  of  the  late  Tariff, 
(ld'JS)  is,  that  it  is  so  constructed  as  to  plea&e  no  one,  that  even  its  friends  pro- 
nounce it  an  abomination  ;  for,  by  offending  and  injuring  all,  it  excites  less  ani- 
mosity in  its  principal  sufferers.  Tariff's  never  will  be  impartial.  They  will 
always,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  be  the  results  of  selfish  combinations  of  pri- 
vate and  public  men,  through  which  a  majority  will  be  secured  to  particular  in- 
terests ;  and  such  is  the  blindness  of  avarice,  that  to  grasp  a  short-lived  par- 
tial good,  the  infinite  blessings  of  union  will  be  hazarded,  and  may  be  thrown 
away." 

The  sentiments  and  opinions  of  Dr.  Channing  upon  this  great  question,  are 
those  which  are  maintained  by  every  intelligent  man  who  has  duly  reflected  up- 
on the  subject.  The  following  extract  from  the  works  of  Dugald  Stewart,  shows 
the  opinions  of  that  enlightened  philosopher. 

"If  we  examine  the  leading  principles  which  run  through  Mr.  Smith's  inqui- 
ry into  the  nature  and  causes  of  the  wealth  of  nations,  we  shall  find  that  all  of 
them  are  general  facts,  or  general  results,  analogous  to  that  which  has  been  just 
mentioned.  Of  this  kind,  for  instance,  are  the  following  propositions,  from 
which  a  very  large  proportion  of  his  characteristical  doctrines  follow,  as  neces- 
sary  and  almost  manifest  corollaries.  That  what  we  call  the  political  order,  is 
much  less  the  effect  of  contrivan  e  than  is  commonly  imagined  : — That  every 
man  is  a  better  judije  of  his  own  interest  than  any  legi-lator  can  be  for  him  ; 
and  that  his  regard  to  private  interest  (or,  in  other  words,  this  desire  of  better- 
ing our  condition)  may  be  safely  trusted  to  as  a  principle  of  action  universal 
among  men  in  its  operation  ;  a  principle  stronger,  indeed,  in  some  than  in  others, 
but  constant  in  its  habitual  influence  upon  all. — That,  where  the  rights  of  iadU 


the  benefits  which  the  system  proposes  to  confer,  fall  to  particular 
States,  which  supply  the  taxed  articles,  while  there  are  other  States, 
which,  having  no  such  articles  to  sell,  enjoy  none  of  the  bounties 
the  system  is  intended  to  confer ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  are  bur- 
thened  with  a  heavy  taxation  in  the  increased  prices  of  many  articles 
of  consumption,  and  in  diminished  prices  for  their  principal  articles 
of  production,  by  being  restrained  from  going  into  the  markets  of 
the  world,  to  the  extent  they  otherwise  would  do,  to  barter  the  pro- 
ducts of  their  labor,  where  they  may  get  in  exchange  their  highest 
value.     Without  this  privilege,  those  who  depend  on  the  foreign 

viduals  are  completely  protected  by  the  magistrate,  there  is  a  strongtendency  in 
human  affairs,  arising  from  what  we  are  apt  to  consider  as  the  selfish  passions  of 
our  nature,  to  a  progressive  and  rapid  improvement  in  the  state  of  society  : — 
That  this  tendency  to  improvement  in  human  affairs  is  often  so  very  powerful, 
as  to  correct  the  inconveniences  threatened  by  the  errors  of  statesmen ;— and 
that,  therefore,  the  reasonable  presumption  is  in  favor  of  every  measure  which 
is  calculated  to  afford  to  its  further  developement,  a  scope  still  freer  than  what 
it  at  present  enjoys  ;  or,  which  amounts  very  nearly  to  the  same  thing,  in  favor 
of  as  great  a  liberty  in  the  employment  of  industry,  of  capital,  and  of  talents, 
as  is  consistent  with  the  security  of  property  and  of  the  other  rights  of  our  fel- 
low-citizens. The  premises,  it  is  perfectly  obvious,  from  which  these  conclusions 
are  deduced,  are  neither  hypothetical  assumptions  nor  metaphysical  abstrac- 
tions. They  are  practical  maxims  of  good  sense,  approved  by  the  experience  of 
men  in  all  ages  of  the  world;  and  of  which,  if  we  wish  for  any  additional  con- 
firmations, we  have  only  to  retire  within  our  own  bosoms,  or  to  open  our  eyes 
on  what  is  passing  around  us.*' 

The  following  extract  from  Mr.  Webster's  speech  in  1824,  shows  a  coinci- 
dence in  opinion  with  Dr.  Channingand  Mr.  Stewart,  and  all  other  enlightened 
men,  who  are  not  participators  in  the  profits  of  monopolies,  or  under  some  other 
bias,  calculated  to  mislead  and  pervert  the  judgment. 

"  We  have  heard  much  of  the  policy  of  England,  and  her  example  has  been 
repeatedly  urged  upon  us,  as  proving  not  only  the  expediency  of  encourage- 
ment and  protection,  but  of  exclusive  and  direct  prohibition  also.  I  took  occa- 
sion the  other  day  to  remark,  that  more  liberal  notions  were  growing  prevalent 
on  this  subject;  that  the  policy  of  restraints  and  prohibitions  was  getting  out 
of  repute,  as  the  true  nature  of  commerce  became  better  understood  ;  and  that 
among  public  men,  those  most  distinguished  were  most  decided  in  their  repro- 
bation of  the  broad  principle  of  exclusion  and  prohibition.  Upon  the  truth  of 
this  representation,  as  matter  of  fact,  I  supposed  there  could  not  be  two  opinions 
among  those  who  had  observed  the  progress  of  political  sentiment  in  other 
countries,  and  were  acquainted  with  its  present  state.  In  this  respect,  however, 
it  would  seem  that  I  was  greatly  mistaken.  We  have  heard  it  again  and  again 
declared,  that  the  English  government  still  adheres,  with  immoveable  firmness, 
to  its  old  doctrines  of  prohibitions  ;  that  although  journalists,  theorists,  and  sci- 
entific writers  advance  the  doctrines,  yet  the  practical  men,  the  legislators,  the 
government  of  the  country,  are  too  wise  to  follow  them.  It  has  even  been  most 
sagaciously  hinted,  that  the  promulgation  of  liberal  opinions  on  these  subjects 
is  intended  only  for  a  delusion  upon  the  nations  to  cajole  them  into  the  folly  of 
liberal  ideas,  while  England  retains  to  herself  all  the  benefits  of  the  admirable 
old  system  of  prohibition.  Wo  have  hoard  from  the  Speaker  (Mr.  Clay)  a  warm 
commendation  of  the  complex  mechanism  of  this  system.  The  British  empire, 
it  is  said,  is  in  the  first  place  to  be  protected  against  the  rest  of  the  world  ;  then 
the  British  isles  against  the  colonies;  next,  the  isles  respectively  against  each 
other  ;  England  herself,  as  the  heart  of  the  empire,  being  protected  most  of  all 
and  against  all.  Truly,  sir,  it  appears  to  me,  that  M.-.  Speaker's  imagination  has 
seen  system,  order  and  beauty  in  that,  which  is  much  more  justly  considered  as 
th«  result  of  ignorance,  partiality  or  violence.'1 


markets  chiefly  for  the  sale  of  their  staples,  cannot  obtain  their  nat- 
ural value,  "  since,"  as  Mr.  Justice  Story  says  in  his  memorial 
against  any  augmentation  to  the  duties  of  1816,  "since  we  cannot 
suppose,  that  foreign  nations  will  receive  our  raw  materials,  if  we 
are  unwilling  to  receive  foreign  manufactures;  we  may  force  other 
nations  to  seek  an  inferior  market  for  their  productions,  hut  we  can- 
not force  them  to  become  buyers  when  they  are  not  sellers,  or  to 

CONSUME  OUR  COTTONS  WHEN  THEY  CANNOT  PAY  THE  PRICE  IN 
THEIR  OWN  FABRICS." 

This  is  a  correct,  practical  view  of  the  operation  of  the  prohibi- 
tory system  upon  the  welfare  of  the  agricultural  exporting  States. 
It  not  only  compels  their  producers  to  pay  an  increased  price  for 
what  they  consume,  but  also  to  accept  a  lower  price  for  all  they 
sell,  by  lessening,  immensely  lessening  the  foreign  demand  for  their 
staples.  This  we  have  proved  by  showing  a  diminution  in  our  ex- 
ports, since  the  protecting  system  commenced,  of  55,000,000  dol- 
lars below  what  we  should  have  exported,  had  the  "protecting" 
system,  as  it  is  most  fraudulently  termed,  never  been  established. 
Now,  can  any  one  doubt,  with  this  fact  in  view,  that  such  a  diminu- 
tion of  demand  for  our  staples  must  have  lowered  their  value,  and 
that  this  part  of  the  injurious  consequences  of  the  prohibitory  system 
must  have  fallen  with  the  greatest  weight  upon  the  Southern  and 
South-western  States? 

The  restrictionists,  in  defending  the  system  of  monopolies  and 
the  vested  interests  connected  with  them,  assume  that  nearly  the 
whole  nation  are  dependent  upon,  and  benefited  by  the  high  duties 
"  A  system  of  laws,"  says  the  New  York  Convention  Address, 
"  imposing  duties  lor  the  encouragement  and  protection  of  domestic 
industry,  upon  the  faith  of  which  a  large  portion  of  the  people  of 
this  country  have  invested  their  property  and  siiven  a  new  din  c- 
tion  to  their  labor,  and  with  a  continuance  of  which  are  completely 
identified  all  their  hopes  of  maintenance  for  themselves  and  their  fa- 
milies, has  been  recently  denounced  as  distinguished  by  every  char- 
acteristic which  may  define  a  tyranny  the  most  odious." 

Mr.  Secretary  M'Lean,  in  that  part  of  his  Report  in  which  he 
advocates  a  continuance  of  the  duties  on  most  of  the  articles  taxed 
from  50  to  200  per  cent.,  while  he  admits  there  is  no  necessity  for 
this  taxation,  except  for  the  benefit  of  the  vested  interests, — falls 
into  the  same  erroneous  view  of  the  effects  of  the  existing  system 
that  is  maintained  in  the  Address.  "  The  vast  amount  of  properly 
employed  in  the  Northern,  Western,  and  Middle  portions  of  the 
Union,"  says  the  Report,  "  upon  the  faith  ol  our  own  system  of 
laws,  and  in  which  the  interests  of  every  branch  of  our  industry  arc 
involved,  could  not  be  immediately  abandoned  *  without  the  most 
ruinous  consequences." 

•  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  as  is  frequently  done  by  the  advocates  of 
high  duties,  argues  the  question  of  reducing  the  duties,  as  if  an  entire  repeal  of 


We  could  adduce  many  passages  from  the  most  popular  and  ap- 
proved publications  in  favor  of  the  existing  system  of  taxation  and 
monopolies,  giving  countenance  to  the  same  extravagant  represen- 
tation made  in  the  Address  and  by  Mr.  Secretary  M'Lean ;  but 
we  think  a  reference  to  such  respectable  authorities  as  the  Convention, 
and  Mr.  Secretary  M'Lean,  who  has  been  a  distinguished  and  ardent 
supporter  of  extreme  duties  (as  evinced  by  his  vote  in  favor  of  the 
act  of  1828),  will  be  sufficient  for  our  purpose,  which  is,  to  make 
our  selection  of  statements  and  reasonings  in  support  of  what  is  term- 
ed the  "  American  System"  from  those  individuals,  and  from  those 
sources  whence  it  derives  its  strongest  support.  We  do  this  in 
deference  to  the  feelings  of  our  opponents,  the  mass  of  whom,  what- 
ever may  be  the  selfishness  or  insincerity  of  many  of  the  political  lea- 
ders of  their  party,  are  doubtless,  honest  in  their  opinions  upon  this 
question,  and  would  change  them  if  they  were  shown  that  the  ex- 
isting system  rests  chiefly  for  its  defence  on  the  most  erroneous 
representations,  made  and  repeated  by  men  who  feel  no  other  inte- 
rest in  the  welfare  of  the  manufacturers,  or  any  other  members  of  the 
community,  than  as  they  may  contribute  to  gratify  their  thirst  for 
wealth,  and  thirst  for  power, — their  avarice  or  their  ambition. 

But  what  evidence  has  ever  been  adduced  by  an  advocate  of 
monopolies  and  restrictions,  to  prove  that  the  great  branches  of  in- 
dustry, the  commerce,  navigation,  agriculture,  the  mechanic  arts,  or 
even  the  aits  of  manufacturing,  are,  as  is  asserted,  mainly  depen- 
dent on  the  existing  system  ?  * 

them  had  been  called  for  by  the  National  Party.  Nothing,  however,  can  be  more 
disingenuous  than  such  an  assumption,  since  no  proposition  of  that  nature  has 
ever  been  submitted  t.i  Congress.  All  that  has  been  asked  for  is  a  reduction  in 
the  extreme  rates  of  duty  imposed  on  many  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  and  which 
iire  admitted  by  many  of  the  manufacturers  themselves  to  be  unnecessary  in 
soiue  instances,  and  injurious  in  others-.  The  Secretary,  however,  while  he  ad- 
mits the  necessity  of  concession  and  conciliation,  among  the  various  members 
of  the  confederacy,  for  the  sake  of  compromising  this  dangerous  question, — urges 
a  retention  of  the  most  oppressive,  and  obnoxious-  features  of  the  act  of  1828; — 
an  act  which  has  been  denounced  even  by  its  contrivers  and  supporters,  as  forced 
upon  the  nation  by  a  •'  political  bargain  or  compromise,"  by  corruption  and  in- 
trigue. This  declaration  comes  from  Mr.  Niles,  a  gentleman  high  in  the  con- 
fidence of  the  restrictionists,  and,  we  doubt  not,  an  honest  and  sincere  believer  in 
the  efficacy  of  their  schemes  for  promoting  the  national  welfare.  And  although 
we  have  no  means  of  verifying  the  truth  of  his  assertions  as  to  the  manner  of  ob- 
taining that  act,  and  the  motives  which  led  to  its  adoption,  we  apprehend  the  most 
intelligent  and  disinterested  portion  of  the  nation  unite  with  Mr.  Niles  in  the  be- 
lief, that  the  act  of  1828  was,  as  he  affirms,  "  projected,  arranged,  and  passed  on 
principles  disreputable  to  a  Congress  of  the  United  States,  the  result  of  a  political 
compromise,  or  a  bargain,  a  e/ a  id  pro  quo  affair,  adjusted  out  of  doors,  a  this  for 
that  not  to  be  mistaken."  This  is  a  lamentable  picture  of  the  character  of  our 
National  Congress  of  1628;  and  we  are  glad,  lor  the  honor  of  the  succeeding 
ones,  that  this  same  independent  and  faithful  historian  has  not  also  affirmed 
that  the"  act  of  1828  has  been  sustained  by  the  sams  menus  and  influences  which 
procured  its  enactment,  and  that  it  is  to  be  maintained,  if  maintained  at  all,  by 
similar  contrivances." 

"  The  following  remarks  from   Mr.  Webster's  speech  of  1824,  are  much  to  the 
purpose,  in  refutation  of  this   unfounded   pretension  on  the  part  of  the    restric- 


We  utterly  deny  the  truth  of  this  representation,  not  only  as  re- 
gards the  industry  of  the  country  generally,  but  as  regards  the  busi- 
ness of  manufacturing,  which,  we  have  already  proved,  in  the  first 
three  numbers  of  this  Exposition,  flourished  in  all  its  branches,  to 
nearly  the  same  extent  it  now  does,  under  an  average  of  one  fifth 
the  ratio  of  duties  imposed  by  the  act  of  1828  for  its  protection. 

Still,  it  is  maintained  by  men  who  affect  to  be  acquainted  with 
the  subject,  that  nearly  the  whole  capital  and  labor  of  the  country 
is  benefited  by,  and  dependent  upon  high  or  prohibitory  duties. 
But  how  do  they  make  out  their  case  ?  Fortunately,  we  have  in 
this  instance  a  fact,  stated  in  the  Address,  which  is  decisive  upon 
this  question  ;  namely,  as  regards  the  comparative  amount  of  capital 
dependent  on  the  existing  system  of  monopolies  and  restrictions. 
These  statements  from  the  Address,  and  from  Mr.  Secretary 
M'Lean's  Report,  together  with  still  more  exaggerated  ones,*  which 
we  have  already  adduced  in  some  former  parts  of  this  Exposition, 
are  certainly  calculated  to  give  an  impression  that  one  fourth,  one 
third,  or  one  half,  or  at  any  rate  some  considerable  proportion  of 
the  whole  capital  of  the  nation  is  comprised  in  what  are  termed  the 
vested  interests ;  which  have  grown  up  under  the  high  duty  system, 
and  which  cannot  be  sustained  without  taxing  the  nation  heavily 
their  support,  nor  modified  without  endangering  the  fortunes  and 
political  prospects  of  the  two  great  parties  who  look  to  those  power- 
ful interests  for  support  in  the  approaching  contest  for  the  govern- 
ment of  this  injured  and  divided  nation. 

That  nearly  the  whole  manufacturing  interests  of  the  country 
flourished  under  duties  of  5  to  10  and  15  per  cent.,  we  have  already 

tionists  as  to  the  comparative  amount  of  capital  and  labor  employed  by  them.  It 
was  in  reply  to  Mr.  Speaker  Clay's  defence  of  the  "  American  System,"  as  it  is 
termed  by  the  iron  masters,  su<rar  planters,  woollen  manufacturers,  and  others 
enjoying  its  benefits.  "  He  (Mr.  Clay)  seems  to  me  to  argue  the  question,  as  if 
all  domestic  industry  were  confined  to  the  production  of  manufactured  articles  ; 
as  if  the  employment  of  our  own  capital,  and  our  own  labor  in  the  occupations 
of  commerce  and  navigation  were  not  as  emphatically  domestic  industry,  as  any 
other  occupation.  Some  other  gentlemen,  in  the  course  of  the  debate,  have 
spoken  of  the  price  paid  for  every  foreign  manufactured  article,  as  so  much  given 
for  the.  encouragement  of  foreign  labor  to  the  prejudice  of  our  own.  But  is 
not  every  such  article  the  product  of  our  oicn  labor  as  truly  as  if toe  had  man- 
vfacturcd  it  ourselves f  Our  labor  has  earned  it,  and  paid  the  price  for  it. 
It  is  so  much  added  to  the  stock  of  national  wealth.  If  the  commodity  were 
dollars,  nobody  would  doubt  the  truth  of  this  remark  ;  and  it  is  precisely  as  cor- 
rect in  its  application  to  any  other  commodity,  as  to  silver."  Again — upon 
that  extraordinary  and  unwarrantable  imposition  practised  upon  the  credulity 
of  the  country,  in  terming  the  system  of  restrictions  and  monopolies  the  "  Aster- 
icon  System,'"  Mr.  Webster  makes  the  following  remarks  : — "  There  is  no 
foundation  for  the  distinction  which  attributes  to  certain  employments  the  pecu- 
liar appellation  of  American  Industry,  and  it  is,  in  my  judgment,  extremely  un- 
wise to  attempt  such  discriminations." 

*  The  Boston  Tariff  Resolutions  at  a  meeting  for  the  choice  of  delegates  to  the 
New-York  Convention,  assert,  that  "  a  great  portion  of  the  middling  mechanics  and 
laboring  dosses  have  become  connected  with,  and  dependent  upon  the  success 
of  these  establishments." 

NO.  XI.  2 


furnished  ample  evidence.  It  has  also  been  shown,  on  the  author- 
ity of  some  of  the  most  intelligent  manufacturers,  that  only  a  small 
portion  of  the  protected  articles  require  any  thing  more  to  sustain 
a  competition  with  the  foreign  than  a  moderate  revenue  duty  ;  and 
have  a  perfect  conviction,  that,  were  the  opinions  of  this  class  of 
men  adopted,  a  scale  of  duties  might  be  agreed  upon  that  would  be 
satisfactory  to  all  parties.  But,  unfortunately  for  them  and  for  the 
nation,  this  question  cannot  be  settled  without  the  interference  of 
politicians,  too  many  of  whom  are  wholly  regardless  of  the  true  in- 
terests of  manufacturers ;  and,  instead  of  dealing  with  the  subject  on 
its  own  merits,  make  it  a  mere  party  question  for  the  promotion  of 
their  own  personal  and  political  views. 

To  return,  however,  to  the  subject  from  which  we  have  digressed  ; 
we  will  admit  the  fact  brought  forward  in  the  Address,  in  support 
of  the  assertion  under  discussion,  as  to  the  amount  of  capital  de- 
pendent on  high  duties,  though  we  have  shown  how  prone  our  op- 
ponents are  to  exaggeration  and  misrepresentation. 

It  is  maintained,  in  page  4  of  the  Address,  that  a  capital  probably 
amounting  to  250,000,000  dollars,  is  dependent  on  the  high  duty 
system  ;  and  this  we  are  told  is  a  large  portion  of  the  capital  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  employment  of  it,  as  Mr.  M'Lean  affirms, 
involves  every  branch  of  our  industry.  The  question  now  is,  as  to 
the  whole  capital  of  the  country  ;  and  as  we  have  no  data  so  satis- 
factory to  our  opponents,  as  the  estimates  and  opinions  of  some  of 
their  most  approved  writers,  we  shall  refer  to  them  for  the  es- 
tablishment of  this  point. 

In  the  Harrisburg  Address,  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Niles,  our  pro- 
ductive industry  is  estimated,  in  1828,  with  a  population  of  about 
12,000,000,  at  1,006,000,000  dollars;  and  if  this  is  correct,  it  must 
now  have  increased  beyond  that  amount.  This  estimate  is  some- 
what above  that  of  another  distinguished  advocate  of  the  doctrines 
of  restriction  (and  of  the  doctrines  of  free  trade  also)  ;  we  mean 
Mr.  E.  Everett,  who,  in  his  speech  of  1 830,  rates  our  national  in- 
come at  1,000,000,000  dollars;  and,  as  he  re-affirms  this  estimate 
in  his  Address  to  the  New  York  Institute,  we  presume  he  is  satis- 
lied  with  ils  correctness. 

An  income  of  1,000,000,000  dollars  would  imply  a  larger 
capital  than  we  think  exists.  But,  if  we  take  the  national  in- 
come at  700,000,000  or  800,000,000  dollars,  it  would  be  within 
bounds  to   call   our  national   capital    10,000,000,000  dollars  ;  *  in 

*  In  a  pamphlet,  entitled  "  Remarks  on  the  Annual  Treasury  Report,"  publish- 
ed in  1828,  and  written  l>v  two  pracl  uished  for  their  tal- 
ents and  information  on  subjects  connected  with  this  question,  our  productive 
indp  Limated  at  000,000,000  dollars,  and  our  national  capital  at 
12,000,000,000  dollars. 


9 

which  case  the  capital  depending  on  the  "  American  System,1'  would 
be  equal  to  2h  per  cent,  of  the  whole  national  capital,  instead  of 
25,  33£,  or  50  per  cent.,  as  is  implied  in  the  statement  under  dis- 
cussion. 

Now  if  the  reader  will  turn  back  to  a  former  part  of  the  Exposi- 
tion, he  will  find  that  we  estimated  the  whole  manufacturing  income, 
depending  on  high  duties,  as  equal  to  3  or  4  per  cent,  on  our  na- 
tional income,  on  the  supposition  that  it' amounted  to  700,000,000 
dollars. 

Here,  then,  is  a  result  founded  on  the  facts,  opinions,  and  asser- 
tions of  the  most  learned  and  ingenious  advocates  of  the  cause  of  re- 
strictions and  the  vested  interests,  which  furnishes  an  irrefutable  an- 
swer to  the  gross  misrepresentations  which  they  themselves  have 
aided  in  circulating  as  to  the  comparative  amount  of  capital  de- 
pending for  employment  on  the  system  of  bounties  and  restrictions. 
The  most  which  can  be  made  of  it,  according  to  their  own  decla- 
ration, is,  that  the  capital  employed  in  the  vested  interests  amounts 
to  2i  per  cent,  of  the  whole  national  capital ;  and  even  this  estimate 
is  probably  somewhat  exaggerated. 

But  what  if  five  hundred  or  five  thousand  millions  were  invested 
in  the  iron,  sugar,  cotton,  and  woollen  monopolies?  These  mono- 
polies ought  not  to  be  endured,  if  founded  on  the  violated  rights  of 
the  people,*  who  are  taxed  on  their  property,  and  restricted  in  their 

*  We  have  already  presented  the  reader  with  the  sentiments  and  opinions  of  Dr. 
Charming  upon  the  nature  and  tendencies  of  the  restrictive  system.  We  again 
refer  to  those  of  another  eminent  individual,  equally  distinguished  for  his  tal- 
ents, his  attainments,  and  his  public  and  private  virtues. 

"Resolved,  That  the  imposition  of  high  duties  upon  imported  commodities, 
without  regard  to  revenue,  hut  with  a  principal  view  permanently  to  support  any 
particular  manufacture,  or  other  branch  of  domestic  industry,  by  the  exclusion 
of  a  rival  commodity  or  great  increase  of  its  price,  is  unjust  in  principle,  erro- 
neous in  policy,  and  calculated  to  impose  a  heavy  burthen  upon  the  community, 
without  any  adequate  advant 

"Resolved,  That  high  duties  imposed  for  the  protection  of  manufactures  in 
their  application  to  interests  and  circumstances  so  various  as  those  of  the  Uni- 
ted States,  are  unequal  and  oppressive  in  their  operation,  and  alike  inconsistent 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  subversive  of  those  principles  of  natu- 
ral justice  and  perfect  equality  in  the  enjoyment  of  social  rights,  which  are  es- 
sential to  the  existence  of  free  government. 

"  Resolved,  That  wore  tiie  justice  and  policy  of  the  protecting  system  less 
questionable  than  they  are.  still,  in  the  actual  condition  of  the  United  States, 
such  Bystem  dej  bt  its  existence  and  effect  upon  laws  establishing  boun- 

ties, protecting  duties,  and  other  ileal  regulations,  and  upon  the  perfect  execu- 
tion of  these  laws,  cannot  attain  that  stability  and  permanency,  nor  can  such 
laws  be  carried  ation  with  the  exactness  and  certainty,  which  are  ne- 

ary  to  the  efficacy  and  safety  of  such  system,  and  to  the  attainment  of  the 
etteets  proposed  by  its  establishment. 

•■  Resolved,  That  laws  imposing  duties  with  a  principal  design  to  protect 
particular  brandies  of  industry,  though  general  in  terms,  do,  on  account  of  the 
great  diversify  of  their  interests  and  pursuits,  operate  unequally  upon  different 
sections  of  the  Union ;  that  such  unequal  operation  lias  a  natural  tendenoy  to 
create  disaffection,  to  excite  and  embitter  local  jealousies,  and  to  interrupt  that 
harmony  and  mutual  confidence,  throughout  the  Union,  which  arc  so  desirable 
and  beneficial  to  all  its  parts. 


10 

occupations,  to  gratify  the  selfishness  of  a  few  thousand  opulent  in- 
dividuals and  their  dependants,  and  a  few  hundred  ambitious  politi- 
cians ;  "  for  why,"  says  Mr.  Justice  Story,  in  his  excellent  Memori- 

"Resolved,  That  the  permanent  adoption  of  a  protecting  restrictive  policy 
has  a  natural  and  obvious  tendency  to  engage  this  country  in  controversies  with 
other  powers,  to  invite  retaliatory  restrictions  and  countervailing  exactions,  in- 
jurious to  our  own  commerce,  and  more  especially  to  check  and  retard  that 
more  liberal  and  commercial  intercourse  among  nations,  which  appeared  to  be 
rapidly  extending  throughout  the  commercial  world,  and  which  it  seems  so 
peculiarly  the  interest  oi-  the  United  States,  as  a  navigating  power,  to  encour- 
age and  reciprocate. 

"Resolved,  That  we  will  cheerfully  co-operate  with  other  citizens  of  the 
Union,  who  may  entertain  similar  views  and  opinions,  in  all  suitable  and  honor- 
able measures,  which  may  be  adopted,  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  these  res- 
olutions."— Manorial  to  Congress,  against  the  Tariff  Law  of  1828,  from  Citizens 
of  Boston,  drawn  vp  by  Chief  Justice  S/taw. 

The  following  are  extracts  from  a  Memorial  of  the  citizens  of  Salem  and  vi- 
cinity, against  any  addition  to  the  duties  established  by  the  Tariff  of  1816.  It 
is  signed  by  a  respectable  committee,  who  were  friendly  to  manufactures,  but 
opposed  to  unjust  and  unconstitutional  expedients  for  promoting  them.  It  was 
alleged  to  have  been  the  production  of  Mr.  Justice  Story,  of  the~Supreme  Court 
of  the  United  States,  who  is  known  to  be  friendly  to  manufactures,  but,  as  it 
appears  .  y  the  Memorial,  opposed  to  burdening  the  nation  for  their  support. 

11  Nothing  can  be  more  obvious,1'  says  this  just  and  independent  magistrate," 
"  than  that  many  of  the  manufacturers  and  their  friends  are  attempting,  by  falla- 
cious statements,  founded  on  an  interested  policy  and  misguided  zeal,  or  very 
short-sighted  views,  to  uproot  some  of  the  fundamental  principles  of  our  reve- 
nue policy,  and  to  compel  our  merchants  to  abandon  some  of  the  most  lucrative 
branches  of  commerce  ;  branches  which  alone  enable  us  to  contend  with  success 
against  the  monopoly  and  the  competition  of  foreign  nations. 

"The  memorialists  most  sincerely  believe  that  it  is  a  sound  political  maxim, 
that  the  more  free  trade  is,  and  the  more  widely  it  circulates,  the  more  sure  will 
be  its  prosperity,  and  that  of  the  nation  ;  every  restriction  which  is  not  indispen- 
sable for  purposes  of  revenue,  is  a  shoal  which  will  impede  its  progress,  and  not 
unfrequently  jeopard  its  security. 

"  It  is  not  a  little  remarkable,  too,  that  those  attempts  to  which  the  memorial- 
ists allude,  arc  not  only  repugnant  to  those  maxims  of  free  trade,  which  the  Vnu 
ted  States  have  hitherto  so  forcibly  and  perseveringly  contended  for,  as  the  sure 
foundation  of  national  prosperity  ;  but  they  are  pressed  upon  us  at  a  moment, 
when  the  statesmen  of  the  old  world,  in  admiration  of  the  success  of  our  policy, 
are  relaxing  the  rigour  of  their  oicn  systems,  and  yielding  themselves  to  the  ra- 
tional doctrine,  that  national  wealth  is  best  promoted  by  a  free  interchange  of  com- 
modities, upon  the  principles  of  perfect  reciprocity." 

u  The  cotton  and  woollen  trade  is  already  loaded  with  20  and  25  per  cent,  du- 
ties, and  if  there  be  added  the  freight  and  charges  upon  importation,  the  domes- 
tic manufacturer?  have  now  an  encouragement,  or  a  profit,  of  '.W  to  3f>  per  cent. 
more  than  the  European  manufacturers  possess,  if  the  same  articles  can  be  manu- 
factured as  cheap  at  home  as  abroad."  "  Why  should  the  farmer  and  the  plant- 
er, and  the  merchant,  and  the  laboring  classes  of  the  community,  be  taxed  for  the 
nec(ssaries  of  life,  a  sum  equal  to  more  than  one  quarter  part  of  the  whole  ex- 
penditures on  these  objects,  that  the  manufacturers  may  put  this  sum  into  their 
own  pockets  ?  " 

"  Upon  the  whole,  the  memorialists  would  respectfully  state  their  unequivocal 
opinion,  that  all  the  measures  to  which  they  have  alluded,  are  calculated  to  inir 
pair  our  naval  strength  and  glory  ;  to  injure  our  most  profitable  commerce  ;  to 
diminish  in  nn  alarming  degree  the  public  revenue;  to  promote  unjustifiable 
speculation;  to  enhance  the  prices  of  manufactures  ;  to  throw  the  great  busi- 
ness and  trade  of  the  nation  into  the  hands  of  a  lew  capitalists,  to  the  exclu- 
sion of  the  industrious  and  enterprising  of  other  classes;  to  introduce  general 
distress  among  commercial  arti/.ansand  agriculturists  ;  to  aggravate  the  present 


11 

al  against  any  augmentation  of  the  duties  established  by  the  Tariff  of 
1816,  "why  should  the  farmer,  and  the  planter,  and  the  merchant, 

and  the  laboring  classes  of  the  community  be  taxed  for  the  necessa- 
ries of  life,  a  sum  equal  to  more  than  one  quarter  part  of  the  whole 
expenditures  on  these  objects,  that  the  manufacturers  may  put  this 
sum  into  their  own  pockets  ?  " 

Having  shown,  upon  the  authority  of  the  New  York  Tariff  Con- 
vention Address,  the  utter  insignificance  of  the  capital  employed  by 
the  favored  classes  in  their  various  monopolies,  as  compared  with 
the  whole  capital  of  the  nation,  we  now  proceed  to  show  the  want 
of  impartiality,  in  the  distribution  among  the  great  sections  of  the 
country  of  the  benefits  derived  by  those  privileged  classes  from  the 
existing  system  of  restrictions  and  taxation. 

The  sections  favorable  to  the  existing  policy  are  the  Western  States, 
with  the  exception  of  Missouri,  together  with  a  portion  of  Kentucky, 
where  the  public  sentiment  has  undergone  some  change  favorable  to 
the  cause  of  free  trade.  The  whole  of  the  Middle  States,  with  the 
exception  of  New  York,  where  the  free  trade  doctrines  receive  a 
partial  support,  are  under  the  influence  of  the  Tariff  party.  Of  the 
Eastern  section,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island  and  Ver- 
mont, are  strenuous  supporters  of  the  "  American  System  ;  "  and 
such  is  the  strength  of  the  vested  interests  in  those  States,  that  the 
whole  political  and  moral  power,  which  they  exercise  over  the  Na- 
tional Legislation  upon  this  question,  is  almost  entirely  in  the  hands 
of  a  few  thousand  corporators,  and  their  numerous  friends  and  de- 
pendants. New  Hampshire  gave  a  majority  of  her  votes  for  the 
act  of  1828;  and  though  her  population  generally  have  no  great  in- 
terest in  the  question,  she  may  perhaps  be  reckoned  in  a  considera- 
ble degree  as  under  the  influence  of  the  neighboring  States  upon  this 
question.  Maine  is  strongly  opposed  to  the  system,  though  her  sen- 
ators are  among  its  zealous  supporters.  The  interests,  however,  of 
this  great  and  rising  member  of  the  confederacy,  the  third  in  com- 
mercial importance  in  the  Union,  are  so  identified  with  a  system  of 
untaxed  navigation  and  free  trade,  that  she  may  be  counted  upon  as 
a  powerful  and  persevering  opponent  of  the  existing  policy. 

The  two  other  great  divisions  of  the  country,  the  Southern,  and 
South-western  States,  are,  with  the  exception  of  Louisiana,  almost 
unanimously  opposed  to  the  existing  system,   as  burthening  them 

distress  of  the  other  classes  of  the  community;  to  provoke  and  extern!  an  un- 
due appetite  for  fraud  and  smuggling;  and  in  fine,  to  destroy  many  of  the  great 
objects  for  tchich  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  originally  formed  and 
adopted.'' 

JosErn  Pf.abody, 

Joseph  White, 

B.  W.  Ckows.ns.mklp, 

1ickf.ri.vg    Dodge, 

WlLLABD  Pf.ELE, 
D.  I*.    PlfKMAN, 


12 

with  taxation,  and  at  the  same  time  diminishing  the  foreign  demand 
for  their  staples,  on  which  they  almost  wholly  depend  for  their  pros- 
perity and  support.  By  a  statement  before  us  of  the  votes  for  the 
act  of  1828,  it  appears  that  the  Southern  division,  comprising  Mary- 
land, Virginia,  North  and  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,  gave  all  their 
votes  but  three,  in  both  branches,  against  it.  The  South-western 
division,  comprising  Tennessee,  Louisiana,  Alabama  and  Mississippi, 
gave  two  senatorial  votes  in  favor  of  the  act  of  1828,  and  all  the 
others  against  it.  Since  that  period,  however,  the  State  of  Louisiana 
has  been  seduced  into  a  support  of  the  system,  to  preserve  the  sugar 
monopoly,  which  imposes  a  tax  of  four  millions  a  year  for  the  bene- 
fit of  at  most  700  planters.  Here  is  an  instance  of  the  influence  and 
power  of  the  vested  interests,  which  cannot  fail  to  strike  every  one. 
Louisiana  contains  48,220  square  miles,  and  a  population  of  215,275. 
She  was  p  free  trade  State,  and  it  is  the  interest  of  nine-tenths  of 
her  population  that  the  free  trade  system  should  prevail.  Yet  such 
is  the  power  of  a  zealous  and  active  combination  of  wealthy  men, 
sustained  by  individuals  who  are  acting  under  the  same  stimulus  in 
other  States,  that  the  whole  political  force  of  this  respectable  State 
is  now  wielded  by  700  sugar  planters,  who,  according  to  their  own 
statement,  employ  less  than  19,000  effective  slaves.  So  it  is  in 
those  States  where  the  tariff  policy  is  supported  ;  for  instance, 
in  Pennsylvania,  and  some  portions  of  the  neighboring  States,  where 
iron  is  produced,  a  few  hundred  wealthy  capitalists,  aided  by  the 
politicians  who  lean  on  them  for  patronage  or  support,  have,  to 
all  appearance,  more  power  over  their  own  legislation,  and  that  of 
the  nation,  than  all  the  farmers,  merchants,  mechanics,  and  manufac- 
turers who  inhabit  those  States. 

We  have  referred  to  the  votes  on  the  passage  of  the  Tariff  law 
of  1828,  as  a  test  of  the  sectional  support  given  to  that  act.  But 
this  statement  requires  qualification  in  regard  to  the  New  England 
delegation,  some  of  whom  voted  against  it,  although  known  to  be 
among  the  most  zealous  partisans  of  the  "  American  System  ;  "  for 
instance,  all  the  members  of  both  branches  of  the  Massachusetts  and 
Rhode  Island  delegation,  except  five,  voted  against  the  Tariff  of 
L828  :  but  it  is  well  known  that  they  did  so  because  the  details 
of  the  act  did  not  conform  sufficiently  to  their  personal  and  sectional 
views  ;  most  of  them  being  themselves  manufacturers,  or  in  some  de- 
gree dependent  for  pecuniary  or  political  support  upon  that  wealthy 
and  influential  order  of  men.  This  delegation  were  not  the  repre- 
sentatives of  what  is  called  the  protected  interests  generally.  Their 
efforts  were  mainly  bent  upon  obtaining  an  increase  of  duties  upon 
cottons  and  woollens.  They  were  advocates  of  restriction  ;  but,  in 
applying  the  principle,  their  object  was  to  confine  it  chiefly  to  those 
particular  branches,  in  which  they  themselves  and  their  constituents, 
the  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers,  were  engaged.     It  was  upon 


13 

this  principle  that  all  those  delegates,  before  whom  Mr.  Mallary'fl 
amendment  came,  voted  for  it;  thus  aggravating  the  worst  feature 
in  the  bill,  as  the  object  of  that  amendment  was,  considerably  to 
augment  the  present  duties  on  woollens  which  now  range  from  45 
to  200  per  cent.  At  this  very  moment,  however,  that  they  were 
showing  their  dissatisfaction  with  the  duties  on  woollens,  which  are 
in  truth  prohibitory  on  a  majority  of  the  articles  of  that  manufacture, 
they  resisted  a  duty  on  hemp,  at  not  one  third  part  of  the  average 
rate  imposed  on  woollens,  on  molasses  and  wool,  because  the  vested 
interests  of  New  England  would  be  injured  by  those  protecting 
duties.  We  advert  to  these  facts  to  show  upon  what  selfish  and 
sectional  principles  the  great  divisions  of  trie  tariff  party  have  acted, 
not  only  towards  the  nation,  but  each  other. 

The  woollen  manufacturers,  who  lay  it  down  as  a  maxim,  that 
high  duties  make  goods  come,  cheaper  to  the  consumers,  made  a  most 
strenuous  opposition  to  the  increased  duty  on  wool ;  *  though,  were 

*  To  show  the  opinions  entertained  by  the  wool-growers,  of  the  want  of  fair- 
ness in  the  manufacturers  in  attempting  to  deprive  them  of  an  equal  share  of 
the  taxes'- levied  on  the  nation,  we  give  the  following  extract  from  a  speech  of 
Mr.  Buchanan,  of  Pennsylvania,  member  of  that  Congress  which  enacted  (he 
law  of  1828.  Mr.  Buchanan  is  speaking  in  reference  to  a  bill  before  Congress 
in  J  827,  which  did  not  pass  into  a  law. 

"  Did  the  woollens  bill  sufficiently  protect  the  growers  of  wool?  I  answer, 
confidently,  that  it  did  not.  In  regard  to  them  it  was  a  mere  (Illusion.  Indeed, 
the  manufacturers  at  first  did  not  intend  thai  emu  additional  duty  should  be  im- 
posed on  the  importation  oficool.  To  the  ability  of  a  representative  of  this  State 
we  are  indebted  that  an}-  provision  was  made  in  the  bill  in  favor  of  the  growers 
of  wool."  From  a  speech  of  Mr.  Van  Huron  in  reference  to  the  same  measure, 
we  extract  the  following  passage  ; — "  The  bill  of  the  last  session  is  called  the 
'  Speculators'  bill.'  and  they  undertake  to  show  that  the  object  of  the  bill  was  to 
pamper  the  already  overgrown  wealth  of  Eastern  manufacturers,  by  heaping 
taxes  chiefly  upon  the  poorer  classes  who  wear  the  coarser  woollens.  Although 
they  all  agree  as  to  tin  ,  they  differ  as  to  the  best  means  of  supporting  it, 

and  these  differences,  being  embittered  by  personal  and  \  intentions, 

are  becoming  every  day  more  inveterate."     These  are  the  opinion-;  of  two  zealous 
partisans  of  the   "  vested  interests,"  who  were  c  of  the  want  of  gene- 

rosity in  the  Eastern  manufacturers  in  not  allowing  the  Middle  States' wool-grow- 
ers, on  whom  they  depended  for  political  support,  their  share  of  the  taxes  levied 
jbn  the  nation  in  virtue  of  the  "  American  System."  The  principle,  say  they, 
that  is,  the  system  of  taxing  one  section  for  the  benefit  of  another,  we  a  e 
agreed  upon  ;  but  we  d  ffer  about  the  division  of  the  bounties  extorted  from  the 
consumers.  The  truth  is,  neither  Mr.  Buchanan,  nor  Mr.  Van  Buren,  was  the 
representative  of  the  nation,  but  of  a  party;  and  both  seemed  to  lose  sight  of 
the  impartial  consideration  due  to  all  the    great  int  country,  in  their 

devotion  to  a  single  branch.     They  complained  of  the  gra  of  the 

woollen  manufacturers,  who,  as  Mr.  Van  Buren  alleges,  would  "  heap  tax 
coarse  woollens  worn  by  the  poi  r;"  yet,  at  the  en  uingsession  of  Co 
those  gentlemen  ga  1  support  to  an  act  which  imposed  doubly  as  high 

a  tax  on  coarse  woollen.-,  as   the  manufacturers  asked  for,  in  the  bill  which  .Mr. 
Buchanan  and  Mr.  Van    Huron   de  ; — thus 

evincing  by  their  acts,  the  utter  insincerity  of  thi  iri  is  of  regard  for  the 

poor,  v. :  of  the  nation  at  large, 

the  contriver:  -iff  of  1828  n  to  their  own  per- 

sonal and  political  views,   which  Could  a  nllueuord  them  to  Vote  for  an 

act  that  was  deprecated  on  all  side?  as  injurious   to  the  very  objects  it    was  in- 
tended to  promote. 


14 

they  believers  in  their  own  doctrine,  it  must  have  been  advantageous 
to  them,  upon  the  well  known  principle  of  the  "American  System," 
that  the  more  a  thing  costs—the  cheaper  it  is  to  the  consumer.     But 

Ao-ain  ;  the  leading  members  of  the  Massachusetts  delegation,  who_ were  them- 
selves manufacturers,  and,  as  such,  enjoying  protecting  duties  of  25  to  100  per 
cent.,  declaimed  vehemently  against  the  injustice  of  taxinghemp  40  to  50 per  cent. 
while  they  rejected  the  bill'for  increasing  the  duty  on  woollens,  because  the  rates 
were  only  45  to  200  per  cent.,  and  because  the  wool-grower  was  admitted  to  a 
share  of  the  protecting  duty. 

They  resisted,  too,  with  equal  energy,  the  duty  on  molasses,  denouncing  that 
part  of  the  bill  as  an  abominable  net  of'injustice  towards  the  consumers,  distil- 
lers and  merchants  of  New  England, — wholly  regardless  of  their  maxims,  that 
"  taxation  reduces  the  prices  of  goods  to  the  consumers  ;"  that  destroying  trade 
is  regulating  or  promoting  it — that  in  order  to  make  commerce  prosperous,  it 
should  be  "  protected." 

The  most  striking  evidence,  however,  of  want  of  consistency  and  of  impar- 
tiality on  the  part  of  the  advocates  of  high  duties,  was  exhibited  in  the  contest 
about  the  duty  on  molasses.  It  was  denounced  by  the  members  representing 
the  cotton  and  woollen  interests  of  New  England  (who  affirmed  that  it  was 
patriotic  to  compel  the  nation  to  pay  double  prices  for  the  woollens  we  consume), 
as  the  result  of  a  wicked  combination  to  injure  New  England.  "  This  tax," 
said  Mr.  Webster,  "  is  to  be  kept  in  the  bill,  that  New  England  may  be  made  to 
feel."  Yet  this  tax  was  first  brought  forward  in  1820,  and  again  in  1824,  by  Mr. 
Clay,  as  was  alleged  in  its  defence  by  Mr.  James  Stevenson,  of  Pennsylvania, 
one  of  the  committee  who  reported  the  act  of  1828,  and  who  made  a  most  elab- 
orate speech  in  its  favor. 

It  was  under  the  influence  of  this  recommendation,  and  of  the  arguments  ad- 
duced by  Mr.  Clay  in  its  defence,  and  reiterated  by  the  Western  delegates  in 
1823,  that  the  molasses  duty  was  increased.  Mr.  Clay,  on  the  duty  being  reduced 
in  1830,  complained  of  that  measure  as  an  infraction  upon  the  great  "  Ameri- 
can System,"  and  depriving  the  Western  distillers  and  grain  growers,  for  whose 
benefit  the  duty  had  been  increased,  of  their  share  of  the  taxes  levied  by  the 
protecting  system  on  molasses. 

In  defending  the  continuance  of  the  molasses  duty,  Mr.  Clay  was  consistent; 
since  it  cannot  be  denied  that  the  grain  growers  and  distillers  of  the  Western 
and  Middle  States,  have  the  same  right  to  a  duty  of  50  per  cent,  on  molasses, 
in  order  to  increase  the  value  and  demand  for  their  grain  and  spirits,  that  the 
wealthy  manufacturers  of  the  Northern  States  have  to  duties  of  45  to  200  percent. 
upon  foreign  woollens,  for  the  purpose  of  compelling  the  farmers  in  the  Western 
and  Middle  States  to  consume  their  fabrics  in  preference  to  the  cheaper  foreign 
ones.  If  the  system  of  taxing  iron,  salt,  sugar,  wool  and  woollens,  cottons,  lead, 
&c.  50  to  200  per  cent.,  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  down  foreign  competition,  be 
a  wise  and  just  system,  then  it  is  equally  wise  and  just  to  extend  it  to  all  articles. 
i\or  can  Congress,  without  the  most  glaring  inconsistency  and  injustice,  with- 
hold protection  from  those  who  may  hereafter  demand  it — certainly  to  the  same 
extent,  as  is  now  aiforded  by  the  protecting  rates  upon  iron,  sugar,  woollens, 
&c,  which  now  range  from  45  to  200  per  oen*.,  and  in  some  instances  to  250  per 
cent.  Nor  would  Congress  have  withdrawn,  in  1830,  the  protection  granted  to 
the  grain-growers  of  the  Western  and  Middle  States,  had  that  respectable  class 
of  men,  comprising  millions  of  our  most  valuable  population,  possessed  the  same 
influence  in  that  assembly  which  a  ft^xv  hundred  iron  masters  of  Pennsylvania, 
and  a  few  thousand  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers  of  the  Northern  States 
have  for  some  years  enjoyed. 
^  In  reply  to  the  imputations  thrown  upon  the  tariff  party  of  the  Middle  and 
Eastern  States  by  the  representatives  of  the  Eastern  incorporations,  it  was,  by 
Mr.  Ingham  and  others,  alleged  against  the  latter,  that  they  were  legislating 
for  a  tew  speculating  capitalists,  thereby  to  raise  the  prices  of  their  stocks,  and 
enable  them  to  sell  out  to  advantage. 

These  are  serious  charges  made  by  the  two  great  tariff  parties  against  each 
other;  but,  coming  from  such  respectable  sources,  there  is  too  much  reason  to 


15 

this  is  perhaps  one  of  those  correct  theories,  which,  we  are  told  by  the 
teachers  of  the  new  school  of  political  economy,  does  not  always  lead 
to  correct  practical  results.  When  a  duty  is  required  on  a  foreign 
article  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  price  of  a  similar  article  made  at 
home  by  certain  favored  classes,  why  then  the  theory  that  taxation 
lowers  the  price  of  the  article  on  which  it  falls,  is  a  correct  theory ; 
or,  at  any  rate,  it  leads  to  a  correct  practical  result ;  namely,  that  of 
transferring,  by  an  easy  and  constitutional  process  of  legislation,  the 
property  of  the  credulous  consumers  to  the  cunning  capitalists,  the 
class  principally  engaged  in  the  favored  branches  of  industry. 

When,  however,  a  duty  is  imposed  on  a  foreign  article,  which  the 
favored  classes  can  get  cheaper  abroad,  and  the  importation  of  which 
does  not  interfere  with  their  monopolies,  the  theory  that  the  more  a 

believe  I  hem  well  founded,  and  especially  supported  as  they  are  by  the  declara- 
tions of  Mr.  Niles,  which  we  have  in  several  instances  cited,  and  to  which  we 
now  add  the  following  remarks,  taken  from  one  of  his  journals  in  1829.  "On 
the  19th  of  January,  1838,  having  visited  Washington,  we  said, '  It  is  to  us  mani- 
fest as  that  the  sun  shines  at  noon-day,  that  any  proposed  alterations  of  the  tariff 
with  a  view  to  the  protection  of  the  agriculturalists  and  manufacturers  of  our 
country,  is  to  be  defeated,  without  reference  to  the  merits  of  the  question  at 
issue,  and  by  the  default  of  individuals,  hitherto  counted  upon  as  the  fast  friends 
of  the  system.'"  Nothing,  we  apprehend,  can  be  more  true  than  this  charge 
against  the  pretended  friends  of  farmers  and  manufacturers,  who,  while  affecting 
to  promote  the  interests  of  the  latter  class,  were  utterly  regardless  of  all  interests 
and  all  rights  but  their  own. 

Mr.  Niles,  in  another  passage  of  his  Register,  denounces  the  supporters  of  the 
act  of  ItiSM  in  the  following  terms  ; — "  The  history  of  the  passage  of  the  bill 
through  the  Senate,  also  prcse?its  some  peculiar  features ;  but  enough  has  been 
said  to  show,  that  political  as  well  as  sectional  feelings  had  much  to  do  in  its 
enactment." — Again  ;  says  Mr.  Niles,  "  Mr.  Randolph,  in  his  peculiar  way, 
said,  that  the  bill  had  no  reference  to  manufactures  whatever,  but  to  the  manufac- 
ture of  a  President  of  the  I  nited  Slates.  We  thought  his  opinion  nearly  right  then, 
and  think  so  still.'1 

Mr.  Niles,  as  is  obvious  from  the  general  tenor  of  his  remarks,  meant  to  exempt 
some  portion  of  the  Tariff  party  from  this  censure.  Indeed  it  is  tube  hoped  that 
many  of  them  acted  rather  in  ignorance,  than  from  that  selfishness  and  politi- 
cal corruption  which  is  imputed  to  them.  Still,  with  the  most  candid  and  impar- 
tial view  of  the  conduct  of  the  two  great  divisions  of  the  Tariff  party,  who  orig- 
inated and  matured  the  act  of  1*2*,  facts  and  appearances  both  warrant  the  be- 
lief, that  a  considerable  number  of  the  advocates  of  the  "  American  System" 
were  influenced  by  political  or  selfish  views,  rather  than  by  what  was  required 
for  the  public  good. 

'1  he  object  in  this  part  of  our  labors,  is,  to  exhibit  in  its  true  colors,  the  sec- 
tional character  of  the  existing  system  ;  and,  to  illustrate  the  truth  of  this  posi- 
tion, we  hive  given  the  historical  details  of  ilie  manner  in  which  the  Tariff  of 
1&2  j  was  fastened  upon   the  nation. 

I  appears,  then,  by  the  declaration  of  respectable  leaders  of  'he  Tariff  party, 
that  the  act  of  1828,  which,  for  its  absurdity  and  injustice,  would  not  have  been 
adopted  at  this  era  of  the  world  by  even  the  most  ignorant  and  unchilized  na- 
tion, has  become  a  part  of  the  legislation  of  our  country,  in  this  enlightened  peri- 
od, an  I  in  an  age  of  liberal  ideas,  not,  as  W6  believe,  with  any  regard  to  the  inter- 
ests of  the  n;ition  (for  it  stands  condemned  even  by  its  own  advocates,  as"  found- 
ed on  principles  disreputable  to  a  Congress  ot  the  United  States,  the  result  of  a 
corrupt  bargain  and  political  compromise  ")  ;  and  must  be  considered  by  all  intel- 
ligent and  impartial  men  as  equally  impolitic  and  unjust, — as  inconsistent  with 
the  letter  and  spirit  of  our  Constitution,  according  to  the  most  approved  exposi- 
tions of  that  instrument  by  its  virtuous  and   enlightened  founders. 

KO.    XI.  3 


16 

thing  costs  the  cheaper  it  is,  is  abandoned,  not  as  an  unsound  theory, 
but  as  leading  in  that  particular  instance  to  an  erroneous,  that  is  to 
say,  to  an  unprofitable  result. 

Such  are  the  paradoxical  absurdities  of  the  "  American  System," 
when  traced  to  their  practical  consequences,  that  it  is  difficult  to 
discuss  them  in  all  their  bearings  without  an  appearance  of  levity, 
unbecoming  so  momentous  a  question,  involving,  as  it  does  in  its 
final  adjustment,  the  peace,  welfare  and  integrity  of  the  Union. 

Let  us  now  proceed  with  our  investigation  into  the  supposed 
advantageous  effects  of  the  high  duty  system  to  those  parts  of  the 
country,  to  which  the  people  have  been  led  to  believe  that  that  sys- 
tem was  more  especially  beneficial. 

The  act  of  1 828,  it  will  be  recollected,  was  sustained  by  the 
delegates  in  Congress  from  the  Western  and  Middle  States,  under 
an  impression  that  the  agricultural  interests  in  those  sections  of  the 
Union,  would  share  its  advantages  in  common  with  the  iron  masters 
of  Pennsylvania,  the  sugar  planters  of  Louisiana,  and  the  cotton  and 
woollen  manufacturers  of  the  Northern  States.  This,  at  any  rate, 
was  the  understanding  of  their  constituents,  who  sent  them  to  Con- 
gress with  such  an  expectation,  and  who  would  not  have  sanctioned 
the  proceedings  of  their  delegates,  had  they  not  supposed  that  the 
results  of  the  act  of  182S  would  prove  beneficial  to  them. 

In  estimating  the  comparative  advantages  of  the  existing  system 
to  the  several  sections  which  have  united  in  its  support,  we  will 
commence  with  the  Western  States.  This  division  of  the  confede- 
racy comprises  the  following  States : — Ohio,  Kentucky,  Indiana, 
Missouri,  Illinois,  and  the  Territory  of  Michigan,  which,  in  the 
course  of  two  or  three  years,  will  have  acquired  a  sufficient  popula- 
tion to  entitle  her  to  an  admission  into  the  confederacy  as  a  State. 

This  fertile  and  thriving  portion  of  the  Union  has  a  surface  of 
territory  of  287,550  square  miles,  and  by  the  census  of  1830,  a 
population  of  2,294,843,  having  increased  in  ten  years  60  per  cent. 
The  population  by  this  statement,  which  is  derived  from  the  most 
authentic  sources,  averages  eight  persons  to  the  square  mile,  thus 
indicating  that  agriculture  must  be  the  staple  employment  of  the 
people  of  this  district  of  country,  for  at  least  fifty  or  an  hundred 
years  to  come, — not  because  the  inhabitants  are  less  skilful  or 
intelligent  than  those  of  the  manufacturing  States,  but  because, 
from  the  cheapness  of  the  land,  combined  with  its  great  natural 
fertility  and  the  consequent  clearness  of  labor  and  high  rate  of  in- 
terest, agriculture  must  be  more  profitable  than  manufacturing, 
till  this  section  shall  have  acquired  a  density  of  population  and 
an  accumulation  of  capital,  somewhat  in  proportion  to  the  man- 
ufacturing Suites,  which  contain  perhaps  sixty  persons  to  a  square 
mile    and   ten    times    the    amount   of  circulating   capital,    in   pro- 


17 

portion  to  the  Western  States.  All  that  is  required  for  the  con- 
tinued prosperity  of  this  pari  of  the  Union,  is  an  active  and  in- 
creasing demand  for  its  productions,  which,  however,  cannot  exist 
under  a  perseverance  in  the  existing  system,  since,  as  we  have  al- 
ready demonstrated,  its  effect  has  been  to  lessen  the  demand  for 
agricultural  productions,  by  depriving  foreign  nations  of  the  means 
of  paying  for  them  by  an  exchange  of  commodities. 

The  statements  which  we  have  exhibited,  show,  that  the  annual 
amount  of  our  exports  of  domestic  productions  may  be  fairly  esti- 
mated at  55,000,000  dollars  less  than  they  would  have  been  had 
the  commerce  of  the  country  been  unobstructed  by  restrictions  and 
prohibitory  duties,  which,  while  they  enhance  the  cost  of  such  com- 
modities as  the  farmers  find  it  necessary  to  buy,  reduce  the  price 
of  the  productions  which  they  have  for  sale. 

It  is  true  that  an  expectation  of  increased  prices  for  the  agricultu- 
ral productions  of  the  Western  States,  was  held  out  as  a  lure  to  the 
people  of  that  section  of  the  country,  to  induce  them  to  give  then- 
support  to  the  taxes  on  woollens,  cottons,  salt,  sugar,  glass,  lead,  &x. 
But  it  is  equally  true,  that  such  expectations  have  not  been,  and  will 
not  be,  realized.  On  the  other  hand,  as  we  shall  hereafter  show, 
all,  or  nearly  all,  the  agricultural  productions  of  the  Western  and 
Middle,  as  well  as  of  the  Southern  States,  have  greatly  declined  in 
price,  since  the  establishment  of  what  is  called  the  protecting  sys- 
tem ; — a  system  which  operates  to  benefit  the  few  at  thee  xpense 
of  the  many,  which  takes  largely  from  the  scanty  earnings  of  the 
poor  and  industrious  classes,  to  augment  the  wealth  of  the  cap- 
italists. 

The  articles  produced  in  the  Western  States,  on  which  the  sys- 
tem of  excessive  and  prohibitory  duties  can  operate  advantageously, 
even  if  carried  to  the  extreme  which  have  been  often  proposed  by 
its  leading  supporters,  viz.  that  of  prohibiting  the  citizens  of  this  free 
country  from  exchanging  the  products  of  their  labor  in  places  where 
they  wrould  command  the  highest  prices, — we  say,  the  only  Western 
agricultural  productions  on  which  it  can  have  a  favorable  bearing, 
are   saltpetre,  whiskey,  cotton  bagging,  hemp,  wool,  iron  and  lead. 

On  saltpetre,  the  duty  is  but  15  per  cent,  on  the  cost;  but, 
with  a  protection  similar  to  what  is  granted  on  sugar,  iron  and 
woollens,  ranging  from  40  to  200  per  cent.,  a  sufficient  quantity 
might  be  collected  from  the  caves  in  the  Western  States,  to  supply 
the  whole  nation.  This,  too,  is  a  munition  of  war,  which  is  almost 
wholly  in  the  hands  of  the  only  nation  who  can  contend  against  us  with 
any  effect,  and  who,  on  the  mere  expectation  of  a  war  with  us,  or 
any  other  power,  would  immediately  prohibit  its  exportation  from 
Great  Britain,  as  well  as  from  her  East  Indian  possessions,  from 
whence   our  present  supplies   are   altogether  derived.     And  here 


18 

we  may  remark,  that  these  supplies  are  frequently  paid  for  in  the 
precious  metals,  the  exportation  of  which,  according  to  Mr.  Clay 
and  other  eminent  advocates  and  expounders  of  the  "  American 
System,"  is  so  ruinous  to  the  country. 

This  is  certainly  one  of  the  few  articles  of  which  it  might  be  ex- 
pedient to  encourage  a  supply  from  our  own  resources,  if  it  be  ex- 
pedient in  any  case ;  because  it  is  really  important,  in  the  view 
which  has  been  taken  of  this  subject,  that  we  should  be  independent 
on  foreign  supply,  when  it  can  only  be  obtained  from  that  nation 
which  could  most  effectually,  in  case  of  war,  prevent  its  introduction 
into  this  country.  Besides,  any  addition  to  the  price  of  saltpetre 
would  hardly  be  felt  by  the  poor  and  industrious  classes.  It  ought, 
therefore,  upon  the  principles  advocated  by  the  tariff  party,  to  have 
its  full  share  of  protection  ;  certainly  protection  to  as  great  an  ex- 
tent as  other  articles  of  necessity,  which,  in  the  event  of  a  war  with 
foreign  nations,  we  could  produce  or  manufacture  at  home.  Na- 
tional independence  has  been  the  most  popular  ground  of  defence 
of  the  "  American  System."  Mr.  Clay,  in  urging  this  topic,  says, 
— "  The  independence  of  my  country  on  all  foreign  states,  as  re- 
spects a  supply  of  all  foreign  wants,  has  been  with  me  a  favorite  ob- 
ject." The  New  York  Tariff  Convention  holds  the  same  language, 
in  reference  tothe  destitution,  in  our  armies,  of  the  means  for  de- 
fending the  country  during  the  late  war.  "  Our  munitions  of  war," 
says  the  Address,  "  were  gathered  as  chance  supplied  them,  from 
the  four  quarters  of  the  earth,  and  our  armies  were  taken  unawares, 
and  challenged  to  a  contest  without  the  necessary  armor  of  a  com- 
batant." 

It  must  be  within  the  recollection  of  all  who  are  familiar  with  the 
discussions  upon  the  subject  now  under  consideration,  how  much 
stress  has  been  laid  upon  the  want  of  6000  dollars'  worth  of  blan- 
kets for  the  supply  of  our  army,  during  the  late  war  with  Great  Bri- 
tain. How  many powerj id  arguments  and  affecting  orations,  have  been 
called  forth  by  this  incident,  to  convince  the  country  that  10,000,000 
of  people  were  near  to  perishing,  from  that  serious  difficulty,  and  to 
prove,  that,  to  the  want  of  these  blankets  may  fairly  be  attributed 
all  the  sufferings  and  disasters  which  befell  our  armies  during  that 
contest ;  though  such  was  the  abundance  of  the  article  on  our  own 
coasts  and  frontiers,  that  it  required  all  the  energy  of  the  "  American 
System,"  then  springing  into  life,  to  prevent  an  introduction  of  the 
most  ample  supply  ! 

The  argument  founded  on  the  blankets  is,  as  must  be  admitted, 
one  of  the  most  cogent  ones,  which  has  ever  been  adduced  in  favor 
of  the  "American  System."  But  we  would  ask  if  a  nation  which 
at  that  time  was  engaged  in  the  manufacture  of  woollens  to  the  ex- 
tent at  least  of  40,000,000  dollars  in  value,  could  be  put  in  jeopardy 
by  the  want  of  2  or  3,000  blankets.     Is  there  not  much  more  dan 


19 

ger  in  the  nations  being  left  unprovided  with  a  supply  of  salt- 
petre, a  material  so  necessary  as  a  most  important  article  of  na- 
tional defence?  If  those  ingenious  and  profound  reasoners,  who 
maintain  that  the  diminution  of  national  wealth  is  the  best  mode  of 
promoting  national  independence,  are  sincere  in  the  belief  of  their 
own  doctrines,  why  do  they  not,  we  again  inquire,  extend  the  system 
of  prohibition,  so  as  to  comprehend  an  article  so  indispensable  to  the 
national  security  as  saltpetre,  and  which,  when  most  wanted,  would 
be  the  most  difficult  of  attainment,  because  under  the  control  of  the 
only  nation,  with  regard  to  which  a  scarcity  of  that  indispensable 
material  for  the  most  important  munition  of  war  could  expose  us  to 
any  danger? 

Why.  then,  we  again  repeat,  does  not  the  article  of  saltpetre  re- 
ceive the  same  favors  from  the  friends  of  the  "  American  System," 
that  iron  and  woollens  have  received,  which,  for  fifty  years  at  least, 
have  been  produced  in  this  country  to  almost  as  great  an  extent  in 
proportion  to  our  population  as  they  now  are, — and  this  without  the 
aid  of  more  than  one  tenth  part  of  the  protection  they  now  enjoy  ? 
It  cannot  be  that  the  expensive  process  of  obtaining  this  article  has 
prevented  its  being  protected  ;  since  the  employment  of  domestic 
labor  and  capital  is  amongst  the  prime  objects  of  the  "  American 
System."  It  is  clear  to  the  comprehension  of  any  mind,  that  in- 
creased cost  of  production  requires  increased  capital  and  more  la- 
bor, and  consequently  that  dear  articles  are  more  advantageous 
than  cheap  ones.  Why  should  not  this  principle,  now  acted  upon 
by  the  Government  on  the  idea  that  it  is  beneficial  to  the  nation,  be 
applied  also  to  the  protection  of  saltpetre  ? 

But  if  there  are  those  who  dissent  from  this  fundamental  doctrine 
of  the  "  American  System,"  they  could  not  fail  to  be  reconciled  to 
an  increase  of  duty  upon  the  faith  of  another  maxim  constantly 
maintained  by  the  restrictionists,  that  "taxation  lessens  the  price  of 
an  article"  or  in  other  words,  the  more  a  thing  costs,  the  cheaper  it 
is,  as  has  been  frequently  demonstrated,  in  the  journal  of  Mr.  Niles, 
and  in  the  essays  and  orations  of  Mr,  Everett,  Mr.  Binrjs,  -Air. 
Carey,  Professor  List,  and  other  eminent  advocates  of  the  "  Ameri- 
can System." 

As  no  cause,  then,  has  ever  been  assigned  by  the  advocates  of 
the  high  duty  system,  for  the  non-protection  of  this  Western  staple, 
we  will  venture  to  suggest  a  consideration  which  may  possibly  have 
led  to  the  omission  of  a  protecting  duty  on  this  important  staple ; 
viz.  that  its  non-importation  into  the  favored  manufacturing  States 
of  the  North,  would  transfer  the  business  of  manufacturing  powder 
from  those  States  to  the  less  favored  agricultural  Slates  of  the  West. 
Such  a  result  would  interfere  with  the  interests  of  the  Northern  and 
Eastern  powder  manufacturers  ;  and  though  perhaps  not  fifty  in  Dum- 
ber, yet,  from  their  alliance  with   the  other  great  vested  interests  of 


20 

the  manufacturing  States,  they  possess  more  influence  and  power  over 
the  national  legislation,  and  on  the  Presidential  question,  than  the 
whole  population  of  the  Western  States.  That  this  is  the  true  reason 
why  protection  has  heen  withheld  from  this  production  of  the  Western 
States,  may  the  more  reasonably  be  inferred  from  the  unexpected 
withdrawal  of  the  excluding  duty  of  five  cents  on  molasses,  and  a 
restoration  of  the  drawback  on  New  England  spirits,  obtained  chiefly 
by  the  influence  of  Northern  manufacturers,  whose  power  over  the 
legislature  of  the  Union  seems  almost  irresistible. 

The  next  Western  staple,  and  the  most  important  to  their  inter- 
ests to  have  protected,  is  spirits,  the  distillation  of  which,  could  the 
grain-growers  supply  the  whole  demand,  would  greatly  extend  the 
consumption  of  their  grain;  and  there  is  the  same  reason  for  ex- 
cluding all  kinds  of  foreign  spirits,  and  molasses  from  which  spirit  is 
made,  that  there  is  for  excluding  iron,  sugar,  woollens,  lead,  he,  in 
order  that  the  producers  of  those  articles  may  have  the  entire  bene- 
fit of  the  home  market — at  least  as  far  as  taxing  similar  foreign  arti- 
cles, from  40  to  200  per  cent.,  can  secure  it  to  them. 

The  attempt,  however,  of  the  Western  delegation  to  retain  this 
protection  to  one  of  their  great  staples,  was  partially  if  not  wholly 
defeated  by  the  exertions  of  the  more  influential  delegates  of  the 
vested  interests,  whose  complaints  against  the  act  of  1828  were  loud 
and  unceasing.  Those  delegates  voted  against  a  continuance  of  the 
ten  cent  duty  on  molasses,  and  for  the  restitution  of  the  drawback 
on  spirits  exported,  probably  from  the  opinion,  that  such  protecting 
duty  on  spirits  and  molasses  was  too  great,  though  at  the  same  time 
their  manufacturing  constituents  were  enjoying  a  protecting  duty,  on 
articles  of  their  own  manufacture,  of  from  40  to  200  per  cent. 

During  the  debates  upon  the  Tariff  act  of  1828,  the  introduction 
of  a  high  duty  upon  molasses  was  denounced  by  the  members  from 
the  manufacturing  States,  as  resulting  from  a  hostile  feeling  to  the 
"American  System,"  and  stigmatized  as  an  act  of  "  vindictive  leg- 
islation." Yet  so  far  was  this  from  being  true,  that  the  molasses 
duty,  as  has  been  before  observed,  was  brought  forward  in  1820, 
and,  as  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Stevenson, of  Penysylvania,  in  his  speech 
of  1828,  "  on  its  being  omitted  in  the  bill  of  1824,  was  placed  there 
by  the  efforts  of  Mr.  Clay."  This  gentleman,  to  do  him  justice, 
has  always  been  consistent  and  manly  in  his  conduct  with  regard  to 
the  existing  system,  and  apparently  desirous  that  each  of  the  con- 
tending interests  should  share  in  its  benefits,*  and  has  so  far  evinced 

*  Since  this  part  of  the  Exposition  was  writ-Ion,  w<  have  read  Mr.  ('lay's  speech 
in  the  Senate,  in  which  he  lays  down  the  principles  on  which  he  thinks  the 
"  American  System"  should  be  readjusted.  With  regard  to  spirits,  he  says, 
"  In  some  instances  there  might  he  an  augmentation  of  duties  for  that  purpose. 
I  will  mention  the  article  o(  foreign  distilled  spirits.  In  no  other  country  on 
earth  is  there  so  much  of  the  foreign  article  imported  as  in  this.  The  duties 
ought  to  he  douhled,  and    the  revenue  thereby  increased  from  000,000  dollars  to 


21 

the  sincerity  of  his  belief  in  the  expediency  of  the  restrictive  system, 
as  promotive  of  all  the  great  interests  of  the  nation. 

In  evidence  of  Mr.  Clay's  agency  in  procuring  the  increase  of 
the  duty  on  molasses,  which  by  New  England  members  of  Congress 
was  imputed  to  Southern  malice  and  Western  hostility,  and  at  the 
same  time  as  a  proof  of  Mr.  Clay's  impartiality  to  all  the  interests  en- 
titled to  the  benefit  of  the  "  American  System,"  we  refer  to  the  fol- 
lowing extract  from  his  speech  of  18J1  : — "  He  believed  there  was 
no  fairer  object  of  taxation  than  molasses.  His  great  wish  was  to 
promote  American  agriculture,  and  in  this  view  to  encourage  the 
production  of  the  raw  material  of  any  subject  of  manufacture  to 
which  our  country  was  adapted,  rather  than  the  importation  of  the 
foreign  rival  article."  Again  ; — "  If  the  policy  of  the  country  be 
well  founded  in  imposing  this  high  duty  on  spirits  manufactured 
abroad,  it  equally  dictates  that  a  high  duty  should  be  imposed  on 
an  article  produced  abroad,  susceptible  of  easy  conversion  into  spir- 
its, and  which  comes  into  competition  with  articles  raised  at  home, 

1,000,000  dollars.  The  public  morals,  the  grain-growing  cruntry,  the  fruit- 
raising,  and  the  cane-planting  country,  would  be  all  benefited  by  rend*  ring  the  du- 
ty prohibitory.  I  have  not  proposed  the  measure,  because  it  ought,  perhaps, 
to  i  riginate  in  the  other  Mouse.' 

There  is  an  inconsistency  in  advocating  a  prohibitory  duty  as  beneficial  to  the 
morals  of  our  people  and  as  increasing  the  revenue,  since  a  prohibitory  duty 
must  necessarily  keep  out  the  foreign  article,  and  therefore,  instead  of  increas- 
ing, annihilate  'lie  revenue  now  accruing  from  duties  which  admit  foreign  spir- 
its. This  power,  however,  of  performing  impossibilities,  is  one  of  tlte  attributes 
of  the  "  American  System.''  It  is  quite  as  rational,  however,  to  maintain  the 
proposition,  that  a  prohibitory  duty,  which  excludes  an  article,  will  increase  the 
revenue,  as  to  affirm  thai  a  p  iwer  in  the  ( institution  to  regulate  trade. — namely 
to  promote  and  increase  trade,  can  fairly  be  construed  into  a  right  on  the  part 
of  Congress  to  destroy  trade  ;  and  yet  this  is  the  position  maintained  by  Mr. 
Carey  and  Mr.  Xiiles.  and  subsequently  by  Mr.  Madison  in  his  letters  to  Mr. 
Cabell.  It  i.s  ihe  ground-work  of  that  ingenious  and  sophistical  disquisition  in 
the  New  York  TariffConvention  Address,  upon  thee  mstitutionality  of  the  tariff 
laws,  the  laborious  and  painful  effort  of  a  mind  reasoning  trj<iin.<t  us  own  mnric- 
tions  :  the  work  of  a  distinguished  individual,  according  to  the  uncontradicted 
reports  in  circulation,  who,  fortunately  tor  the  causeof  truth  and  justice,  had  so 
strongly  established  the  opposite  position,  namely,  that  on  act  passed  iciih  the 
intention  of  prohibiting  trade  teas  unconstitutional — that  it  will  be  impossible  to 
overthrow  that  just  and  common  sense  view  of  the  illegality  of  the  existing  tariff 
law,  or  of  any  other  act  of  Congress,  which  may  hereafter  be  passed  upon  similar 
principles. 

With  regard,  however,  to  an  increased  duty  on  foreign  spirits,  it  must  be  ad- 
milted  that  Mr.  Clay  is  right;  since  the  wheal  growers  of  the  Western  end  Mid- 
dle States  have  the  same  claim  to  protection,  that  the  iron  masters.  BUgar  plan- 
ters, ami  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers  have  so  long  enjoyed.  If  the  future 
policy  of  the  country  is  to  be  regulated  on  the  priciples  la  d  down  by  Mr.  Clay 
and  sustained  by  Mr.  Secretary  M'Lean,  namely,  that  it  is  just  and  expedient  to 
exclude  such  foreign  productions  ascan  be  imported  cheaper  than  aim  iar  domes- 
tic articles  can  be  afforded, — then,  it  necessarily  follows,  that .  verj  article,  which 
can  be  raised  or  manufactured  in  this  extensive  country,  is  entitled  to  protection, 
and  must  be  protected,— certainly  up  to  that  degree  of  protection  enjoyed  by  the 
producers  of  woollens,  iron,  BUgar,  ranging  from  25  to  200  p<    nut. 

If  the  protecting  system  is  poli  ie  and  just,  then  let  it  be  universal.  If  it  is 
unjust  and  impolitic,  tin  n  it  ought  no  longer  to  be  partially  endured. 


capable  of  similar  conversion." — "  Every  gallon  of  spirits  distilled 
from  foreign  molasses,  and  consumed  within  the  country,  takes  the 
place  of  a  gallon  of  spirits  distilled  from  domestic  produce.  The 
foreigner  enjoys  the  benefit  of  the  value  of  the  raw  material,  and  we 
that  of  the  manufacture  only.  This  latter  advantage  we  should 
still  possess,  if  we  substituted  a  native  raw  material,  to  that  which  is 
furnished  us  from  abroad,  and  consequently  the  mere  interest  of 
manufacturing  would  not  suffer  by  the  exclusion  of  the  foreign  ma- 
terial. There  would  at  most  be  only  a  change  in  the  theatre  of  dis- 
tillation." The  subject  was  closed  by  a  proposition  on  the  part  of 
Mr.  Clay  to  insert  in  the  bill,  then  under  discussion,  a  duty  of  12£ 
cents  a  gallon,  which  he  subsequently  modified  by  reducing  it  to  10 
cents.  And  this  was  the  exact  rate  established  by  the  tariff  law 
of  1828,  and  since  reduced  to  5  cents, — a  measure  complained  of 
by  Mr.  Clay,  who  thought  the  Western  States  as  fairly  entitled  to 
a  protecting  duty  of  50  per  cent,  in  favor  of  distillation  from  home 
materials,  as  the  iron  masters,  sugar  planters  and  woollen  manufac- 
turers were  to  protecting  duties  on  their  various  productions,  of  40 
to  200  per  cent. 

What  then,  we  ask,  is  the  reason  that  the  duty  on  molasses  (one 
of  the  few  beneficial  effects  of  the  tariff  of  1828  to  the  agricultural 
interests  of  the  Western  States),  was  in  the  first  instance  resisted  by 
the  delegates  from  New  England,  and  in  the  second  place  repealed 
with  the  aid  of  their  votes?  Was  it  not  that  a  continuance  of  that 
duty,  would,  as  is  alleged  by  Mr.  Clay,  have  caused  a  transfer  of  the 
business  of  distilling  from  [he  powerful  vested  interests  of  New  Eng- 
land, to  the  less  influential  States  of  the  JVest? 

We  trust  that  no  one  can  so  far  mistake  the  purport  of  these  remarks, 
as  to  suppose  that  we  mean  to  advocate  the  increased  duty  on  mo- 
lasses imposed  by  the  act  of  1828,  or  that  we  lament  its  reduction 
to  the  former  rate.  But,  with  Mr.  Clay,  we  contend,  that  upon 
the  broad  principle  of  encouraging  domestic  industry,  as  understood 
by  the  advocates  of  the  "American  System,"  the  Western  States 
were  injured  by  that  measure  ;  and  differing  in  principle  as  we  do 
with  Mr.  Clay,  we  cannot  but  respect  the  devotion  to  his  own  prin- 
ciples displayed  in  the  independence  and  impartiality  with  which 
he  defended  the  claim  of  the  Western  States  to  the  whole  protecting 
duty  on  molasses,  as  imposed  by  the  tariff  of  1828,  in  opposition  to 
those,  who,  professing  to  be  influenced  by  the  same  principles,  would 
only  allow  a  local  and  partial  application  of  them.  If  the  wealthy  cap- 
italists engaged  in  the  production  and  manufacture  of  cottons,  wool- 
lens, iron  and  sugar,  have  a  right  to  the  enjoyment  of  protecting 
taxes  of  from  40  to  200  per  cent,  on  those  immensely  valuable  pro- 
ductions, of  which  we  annually  consume  150,000,000  dollars,  upon 
what  principle  of  justice  and  equality  can  Congress  withhold  a  pro- 
tecting tax  of  40  or  50  per  cent,  upon  an  article,  which,  so  far  from 


23 

being  a  necessary,  or  even  comfort,  of  life,  poisons  half  our  popula- 
tion? A  tax  on  spirits  is  one  of  the  leu  taxes,  that  would  really 
be  useful,  by  lessening,  in  some  degree,  the  use  of  an  article  so  in- 
jurious to  the  health  and  morals  of  those  who  will  not  abstain  from 
its  consumption.  We  may  hope,  however,  that  the  time  is  approach- 
ing when  the  grain  of  the  Western  States  will  be  profitably  employed 
in  fattening  animals  for  slaughter,  or  converted  into  flour  or  meal, 
and  exchanged  for  the  tropical  productions,  under  moderate 
rates  of  duty;  when,  the  question  of  relative  protecting  du- 
ties to  the  Eastern  or  Western  distiller,  shall  be  utterly  insignifi- 
cant. Till  this  takes  place,  the  "  American  System,"  if  a  just  and 
wise  one,  should  be  extended  to  every  domestic  production  in  what- 
ever part  of  the  country  it  may  be  produced,  according  to  the  views 
of  Mr.  Clay  ;  and  this  gentleman  must  stand  infinitely  higher  in  the 
estimation  of  those  who  differ  from  him  on  this  great  question,  than 
those  leaders  of  the  tariff  party,  who,  when  the  manufactur- 
ers were  struggling  under  comparatively  moderate  duties  of  protec- 
tion, violently  opposed  a  slight  addition  to  them,  and  who  a  few 
years  afterwards  defended  with  equal  vehemence  a  tariff  which  more 
than  doubled  the  rates  they  formerly  resisted  ;  or  than  those,  who,  at 
one  period  denounced  any  rates  of  duty  beyond  what  were  actually 
wanted  for  revenue,  as  "  oppressive,  unjust,  and  unconstitutional," 
and,  a  few  years  subsequently,  denounced  with  equal  zeal,  as 
enemies  to  the  Constitution  and  the  country,  all  who  had  not 
been  tempted  by  avarice  or  ambition  to  renounce  those  opin- 
ions they  themselves  had  formerly  maintained.  From  men,  who, 
like  Mr.  Clay,  have  been  open  and  consistent  in  their  views,  there 
is  much  to  be  hoped,  either  from  a  change  of  opinions  too  hastily 
adopted  and  leading  to  unforeseen  and  unexpected  results,  or  from 
their  relinquishing  such  as  may  require  change  in  consequence  ol  a 
subsequent  change  of  circumstances. 

From  an  highly  endowed  statesman,  who  has  evinced  on  this 
question  a  steadiness  of  principle  and  consistency  of  action,  which 
are  generally  indicative  ol  correct  motives,  there  is,  we  say,  much 
to  be  hoped.  But  from  men  whose  principles,  like  the  votes  of  a 
rotten  borough,  or  the  shares  of  a  manufacturing  corporation,  are 
transferable  to  the  highest  bidder,  there  is  little  to  be  expected,  and 
every  thing  to  be  feared  ;  for,  though  individually  most  of  them  may 
be  of  little  importance,  yet  their  numbers  are  so  great,  and  the  re- 
quisite temptations  so  low,  that  they  cannot  but  continue  to  be,  what 
they  generally  have  been,  a  most  efficient  portion  ol  many  ol  our 
legislative  assemblies. 

Having  shown  that  the  great  Western  staples  of  saltpetre  and 
whiskey  are   not  protected  by  the  existing   duties,   and    the   reason 

NO.    XI.  4 


24 

why  protection  has  not  been  granted  to  them,  we  proceed  to  an  es- 
timate of  the  advantages  actually  realized  to  the  Western  States, 
in  consequence  of  the  encouragement  afforded,  by  the  present 
tariff  of  duties,  to  those  productions  which  are  supposed  to  be  pro- 
tected. 

It  must  be  obvious  to  every  one  who  reflects  on  the  subject, 
that  the  gain  to  the  Western  States,  from  bounties  granted  by  Con- 
gress in  the  form  of  protecting  duties  on  foreign  articles,  similar 
to  those  produced  in  this  section,  must  be  limited  to  the 
amount  of  the  extra  prices  caused  by  those  duties  on  articles  sold 
to  other  sections  of  the  Union  ;  since  the  bounty  on  articles  consumed 
within  the  Western  States  themselves,  operating  as  a  tax  upon  the 
consumers  of  such  articles,  is  no  gain  to  the  section,  though  it  may 
be  to  particular  individuals,  who  are  engaged  in  supplying  the  pro- 
tected articles  ; — and  for  this  obvious  reason,  that  what  is  acquired  by 
one  class  of  men,  is  taken  from  the  earnings  of  another  class,  and  is, 
therefore,  instead  of  being  an  addition  to  the  common  stock,  in  truth 
a  mere  transfer  from  the  community  at  large  to  a  favored  class  of 
men,  for  whose  especial  benefit  all  the  other  classes  are  taxed. 

For  instance,  let  us  suppose,  that  the  annual  produce  of  the  iron 
mines  in  Pennsylvania  is  30.000  tons,  and  that  in  consequence  of 
the  protecting  taxes  of  40  to  150  per  cent,  on  that  raw  material,  the 
iron  masters  make  a  clear  gain  of  25  per  cent.,  equal  to  20  dollars 
per  ton,  over  and  above  what  any  other  mode  of  employing  their 
capital  would  produce.  The  gain  to  the  iron  masters  would,  in 
this  case,  be  000,000  dollars ;  but  the  gain  to  the  State  would  only 
be  on  such  a  portion  of  the  iron  as  might  be  sold  out  of  that  State. 
If  10,000  tons  were  the  quantity  exported  from  Pennsylvania  to 
other  States,  her  own  capital  would  be  thereby  increased  200,000 
dollars  ;  but  the  bounty  on  20,000  tons  consumed  in  the  Slate, 
would  be  a  gain  to  the  iron  masters  only,  and  not  to  the  State,  as 
the  gain  of  the  producers  would  be  precisely  equal  to  the  loss  of  the 
consumers,  in  the  extra  price  paid  for  their  iron.  There  would 
certainly  be  an  augmentation  of  the  capital  of  the  iron  masters  on 
20,000  tons  at  20  dollars  a  ton,  being  400,000  dollars;  but  there 
would  be  an  equal  diminution  of  the  capital  of  the  Pennsylvania 
consumers,  in  the  increased  prices  paid  for  the  iron.  In  fact,  it 
would  be  a  tax  of  400,000  dollars  on  the  million  and  a  half  of 
farmers,  mechanics,  merchants,  and  other  citizens,  for  the  benefit 
of  a  few  hundred  iron  masters,  without  adding  one  dollar  to  the 
wealth  of  the  State.  Her  whole  benefit  from  the  iron  monopoly 
must  be  limited  to  the  bounty  on  the  quantity  of  iron  which  is  sold 
to  purchasers  out  of  the  State. 

The  benefit,  ihen,  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  Western  States, 
with  a  population  of  2,394,803  sou!^,  derive  from  the  partial  dis- 
tribution of  the  taxes  imposed  on  the  nation  by  the  act  of  1828, 


25 

must  be  limited  to  the  extra  prices  they  obtain,  in  consequence  of 
that  act,  on  the  protected  productions  which  they  dispose  of  in  other 
sections  of  the  Union.  These  protected  productions  are  principally 
iron,  cotton  bagging,  hemp  and  wool, — lead  being  confined  to  -Mis- 
souri ;  and  these  are  the  only  articles  which  can  derive  any  benefit 
from  the  existing  system,  that  benefit  being  the  extra  price  caused 
by  the  duty,  and  consequent  enhancement  of  price  on  the  similar 
foreign  article,  operating  as  a  bounty  on  the  domestic  article. 

First,  then,  as  to  Tron.  For  information  as  to  the  quantity  of  that 
article  produced  in  the  United  States,  we  find  the  most  precise  state- 
ment in  a  speech  ot  Mr.  I.  S.  Stevenson,  member  of  Congress  from  an 
iron  district  in  Pennsylvania,  one  of  the  committee  who  reported  the 
tariff  bill  of  1S2S,  and  who  advocated  it  in  a  very  elaborate  speech, 
in  which  he  entered  into  a  minute  detail  of  the  quantities  of  iron 
produced  in  those  parts  of  the  country,  which  may  be  considered  as 
iron  States.  Now,  as  it  was  the  interest  of  the  iron  masters  and  their 
partisans  in  Congress,  to  exaggerate  the  quantities  of  the  home-made 
iron,  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  he  has  in  any  instance  under- 
rated the  production.  The  statement  of  Mr.  Stevenson  agrees  in 
many  particulars  with  the  evidence  taken  before  the  committee  of 
manufacturers,  of  which  Mr.  Stevenson  was  a  member ;  and  espe- 
cially with  the  testimony  of  Mr.  John  Mitchell,  one  of  the  persons 
examined  by  that  committee.  Mr.  Mitchell  was  at  that  time  a 
member  of  Congress  from  Pennsylvania,  and  professed  to  the  com- 
mittee to  have  an  intimate  knowledge  of  the  iron  business  in  the 
State  he  represented,  having  himself  been  personally  engaged,  for 
nine  or  ten  years,  in  the  manufacture  of  iron. 

Of  the  quantity  of  iron  produced  in  the  Western  States,  Mr.  Ste- 
venson says,  that  "  a  very  accurate  estimate  in  his  possession  gives 
for  Ohio  5,000  tons,  and  Kentucky  4,500  tons  of  pig  metal,  making 
together  9,500  tons.  Mr.  Stevenson  and  others  estimate  a  ton  of 
pig  metal  equal  to  two  thirds  of  a  ton  of  liar-iron.  Consequently  the 
produce  of  raw  iron  in  the  Western  section,  was,  at  the  period  of  the 
passage  of  the  tariff  bill  in  1S28,  6,333  tons. 

The  question  now  recurs  as  to  the  benefit  which  Ohio  and  Ken- 
tucky derive  from  the  bounty  bestowed  upon  this  article  by  the  pro- 
tecting system,  on  the  supposition  that  it  might  he  equal  to  20  dollars 
per  ton.  We  say  that  this  quantity  of  iron,  and  much  more,  must  be 
consumed  in  those  States,  and  consequently  the  bounty  of  20  dollars 
per  ton,  though  gained  by  the  proprietors  of  the  iron  mines  and  man- 
ufacturers of  iron,  is  levied  on  the  consumers,  in  the  increased  price 
of  the  iron  beyond  the  price  it  would  cost  them  under  a  free  trade 
policy,  and  therefore,  though  a  gain  to  individuals,  is  not  to  the  West- 
ern section.*     It  is  a  mere  transfer  from  one  class  of  men  to  another 

*  As  the  Western  Stales,  according  to  Mr.  Stevenson's  statement,  produce  bn( 

little  iron,  that  section,  instead  of  being  benefited  by  the  bounty   of  'SO  dollar* 


26 

class  of  men — from  millions  of  farmers  and  mechanics,  who  pay  an 
increased  price  of  25  to  50  per  cent,  for  the  principal  material  of  their 
working  implements,  to  a  few  hundred  iron  masters,  who  were  carry- 
ing on  a  prosperous  business  thirty  years  ago,  under  revenue  duties 
cf  5  to  15  per  cent. ;  whereas  the  present  duties  on  raw  iron  range 
from  40  to  150  per  cent.,  though  manufactures  of  iron  are  admitted 
at  a  duty  of  25  per  cent. 

According  to  the  testimony  of  the  iron  masters  before  the  com- 
mittee of  Congress,  the  price  of  iron  in  1828,  in  the  Middle  States, 
was  from  100  dollars  to  120  dollars  the  ton.  Were  the  duties  on 
the  foreign  articles  removed,  the  prices  of  raw  or  bar  iron  would 
decline  to  35  and  65  dollars  the  ton  on  the  sea-board,  and  from 
45  dollars  to  75  dollars  in  the  interior  of  those  States. 

The  New  York  Tariff  Address,  in  pointing  out  the  benefit  of 
the  "  American  System,"  states,  that  "  bar  iron,  which  sold  at  Pitts- 
burg in  1829  at  122  dollars,  sells  there  now  for  95  dollars."  This, 
we  doubt  not,  is  true ;  but  were  the  duty  on  iron  to  be  reduced,  the 
merchants  of  Baltimore  and  New  York  would  deliver  at  Pittsburg 
all  that  is  wanted  for  the  consumption  of  that  part  of  the  country, 
at  from  45  dollars  to  75  dollars  the  ton,  and  at  New  York  at  35 
dollars  to  65  dollars  the  ton,  estimated  by  the  latest  European  prices. 
Such  a  measure  would  undoubtedly  lower  the  profits  of  the .  iron 
masters,  but  would  be  beneficial  to  all  other  classes,  not  even  ex- 
cepting the  laborers  employed  in  the  production  and  manufacture  of 
iron,  since  their  wages  would  remain  at  the  same  rate  as  at  present, 
if  their  employment  in  that  branch  of  industry  should  be  continued, 
and  if  not,  they  would  in  any  other  occupation  be  able  to  earn  the 
same  rate  of  wages.  While  the  wages,  therefore,  of  the  laborers  in 
the  iron  business,  would  remain  at  the  same  rates  which  they  now 
are, — if  the  taxing  system  was  repealed,  they  would  obtain  their  cot- 
tons, woollens,  salt,  sugar,  molasses,  glass,  and  many  other  necessa- 
ries of  life,  at  lower  prices  than  they  now  pay  for  them. 

We  come  now  to  Cotton  Bagging,  on  which  there  is  a  heavy  duty, 
bearing  severely  upon  an  agricultural  staple,  more  depressed  in 
value  than  any  production  of  the  country,  but  growing  as  it  does  in 
a  section  which  has  for  some  years  ceased  to  have  any  influence  in 
the  national  legislation,  or,  as  regards  the  Tariff  question,  any  rights 
under  the  Constitution,  it  is  of  course  put  down  as  one  of  those 
articles  which  may  be  taxed  with  impunity,  and  much  to  the  benefit 

per  ton,  enjoyed  by  the  iron  masters,  is  hea\ily  taxed,  since  the  people  of  those 
Suites  are  importers  of  iron,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Eastern  arid  Middle  States. 
Taking  their  consumption  at  1">,0U()  tons  beyond  what  is  produced  within  those 
States,  their  sharo  of  the  iron  tax,  levied  i< >r  the  benefit  of  someofthe  wealthiest 
men  in  tho  Union,  would  amount  to  150,000  dollars. 


27 

of  the  vested  interests  of  the  manufacturing  States.  Indeed  the 
bounty  on  that  fabric  was  held  up,  by  the  partisans  of  the  privileged 
interests,  as  a  portion  of  the  gain  they  would  derive  by  giving  their 
support   to  the   act  of  1 

We  admit  that  on  this  manufacture  the  Western  section  may 
gain,*  as  the  principal  portion  of  it  is  sold  for  consumption  to  the 
cotton-growing  States,  who  are  thus  rendered  tributary  to  them  for 
all  the  increased  price  which  is  imposed  on  the  article,  beyond  what 
it  would  cost  in  the  absence  of  the  protecting  tax,  or  under  a  free 
trade  system  imposing  moderate  duties  for  revenue. 

While,  however,  we  admit  this,  it  must  be  conceded  by  our  op- 
ponents, that  all  which  has  been  gained  by  the  manufacturers  of 
bagging  in  consequence  of  the  excessive  duty  of  1828,  is  the  profit 
on  the  quantity  of  foreign  bagging  which  has  been  excluded  by  the 

*  Mr.  Clay,  in  his  speech  in  the  Senate,  asserted  that  even  upon  bagging  there 
was  no  advantage  accruing  to  the  Western  Slates  from  the  high  duty  imposed 
on  it,  because  that  duty  was  almost  entirely  evaded,  as  will  be  seen  by  the 
following  extract : — 

"  But  if  the  system  be  preserved,  it  ought  to  be  honestly,  fairly,  and  faithful- 
ly enforced.  That  there  do  exist  the  most  scandalous  violations  of  it,  and  the 
grossest  frauds  upon  the  public  revenue,  in  regard  to  some  of  the  most  important 
articles,  cannot  be  doubted.  As  to  iron,  objects  really  belonging  to  one  denom- 
ination, to  which  a  higher  duty  is  attached,  are  imported  under  another  name, 
to  which  a  lower  duty  is  assigned,  and  the  law  thus  evaded.  False  invoices  are 
made  as  to  woollens,  and  the  classification  into  minimums  is  constantly  eluded. 
— The  success  of  the  American  manufacture  of  cotton  bagging  has  been  such 
as  that,  t>y  furnishing  a  better  and  cheaper  article,  the  bagging  of  Inverness  and 
Dundee  has  been  almost  excluded  from  the  consumption  of  the  Slates  bordering 
on  the  Mississippi  and  its  tributaries.  There  has  not  yet  been  sufficient  time 
to  fabricate  and  transport  the  article  in  necessary  quantities  from  the  Western 
States  to  the  Southern  Atlantic  States,  which  therefore  have  been  almost  ex- 
clusively supplied  from  the  Scottish  manufactories.  The  payment  of  the  du- 
ty is  evaded  by  the  introduction  of  the  foreign  fabric,  under  the  name  of  bur- 
laps, or  some  other  mercantile  phrase,  and  instead  of  paying  five  cents  the 
square  yard,  it  is  entered  with  a  duty  of  only  fifteen  per  cent  ml  valorem. 
That  this  practice  prevails,  is  demonstrated  by  the  Treasury  report  of  the  du- 
ties accruing  on  cotton  bagging  for  the  years  1828,  182!),  and  1830.  During  the 
first  year,  the  amount  was  137,506  dollars,  the  second  106,068  dollars,  and  ihe 
third  it  sunk  down  to  14,141  !  " 

Thus,  according  to  Mr.  Clay,  the  Western  manufacturer  is  cheated  out  of  his 
share  of  the  benefit  of  the  "  American  System."  by  smuggling  and  fraud  ;  and 
the  honest  merchant  deprived  of  the  means  of  pursuing  a  business  in  which  he 
is  undersold  by  those  who  evade  a  great  portion  of  the  duties  on  bagging,  iron, 
woollens,  and   probably  many  other  articles. 

Mr.  Clay  calls  for  an  inquiry  into  the  manner  in  which  the  revenue  laws  have 
been  executed.  We  trust  a  thorough  investigation  will  follow,  and  such  altera- 
tions be  made  in  the  existing  laws  as  will  render  them  more  efficient  than  they 
have  heretofore  been. 

The  impression  prevails  almost  universally  among  mercantile  men,  as  well  as 
the  manufacturers,  that  frauds  to  an  enormous  amount  are  practised  upon  the 
government  by  false  entries,  and  false  valuations;  and  that  smuggling  if  carried 
on  to  a  great  extent  on  the  Northern  and  North-eastern  frontiers  of  the  country. 
Unless  something  is  soon  done  to  prevent  such  proceedings,  the  main  business 
of  importing  high  dutied  articles  will  be  entirely  transferred  from  the  lair-deal- 
ing merchant  to  the  fraudulent  importer  and  the  smuggler. 


28 

operation  of  that  act.  On  referring  to  the  importations  of  this  ar- 
ticle for  several  years  prior  to  the  act  of  1828,  we  find  the  quantity 
of  imported  cotton  bagging  to  have  varied  from  two  to  five  millions 
of  yards.  Since  the  passage  of  the  law  the  importation  has  de- 
clined to  700,000  yards — the  last  year  to  272,000  yards. 

According  to  this  statement,  the  Western  manufacturers  of  bag- 
ging, have  an  increased  demand  for  3,000,000  or  4,000,000  of 
yards  of  this  article.  But,  admitting  for  sake  of  argument,  that, 
from  the  increased  consumption  of  their  fabric  for  some  years,  the  tar- 
iff of  1828  did  enable  them  to  force  upon  the  cotton  planters  of  the 
South,  S, 000, 000  yards  more  than  they  would  have  purchased,  if  they 
had  been  allowed  to  buy  the  article  where  it  could  have  been  most 
cheaply  obtained — what  would  have  been  the  gain  to  the  Western 
manufacturers  on  this  protected  article?  Why,  if  the  whole  amount 
of  duty,  5  cents  per  yard,  had  been  a  gain  to  that  part  of  the  Union, 
it  would  amount  to  only  400,000  dollars,  which,  in  reference  to  a 
population  of  two  millions  and  a  third,  is  not  worthy  of  consideration  ; 
in  truth,  it  is  less  than  the  bounty  enjoyed  by  perhaps  twenty  indi- 
viduals engaged  in  supplying  this  very  section  with  many  millions 
in  value  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  at  25  to  50  per  cent,  higher 
prices  than  they  would  cost  under  a  free  trade  system. 

The  next  protected  staple  of  the  Western  section  is  Hemp.  The 
investigation  of  the  operative  effects  of  the  high  duty  system  on  this 
production,  will  show  how  delusive  are  the  expectations  of  the 
farmers  of  the  hemp-growing  districts,  in  supposing  that  they  share 
in  the  benefits  of  the  ';  American  System." 

On  the  adjustment  of  the  act  of  1S2S  by  the  two  great  tariff  par- 
ties in  Congress,  who  represented  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the 
Northern  States  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  agricultural  interests  of 
the  Western  on  the  other,  there  was  a  demand  made  by  the  Western 
delegates,  that  there  should  be  an  increased  duty  on  hemp,  as  it 
then  only  enjoyed  a  protection  of  35  dollars  the  ton,  equal  to  about 
25  to  30  per  cent,  on  the  clean  and  outshot.  As  the  duties  on  cot- 
tons were  then  on  an  average  equal  to  45  or  50  per  cent.,  and  on 
sugar,  iron,  glass,  lead,  &c.  35  to  125  per  cent.,  it  appeared  reason- 
able that  the  hemp  grower  should  also  have  the  bounty  raised  on 
his  staple.  In  pursuance  of  this  reasonable  demand  an  increase  of 
duty  was  recommended  by  the  Harrisburg  Convention,  without  how- 
ever specifying  what  additional  sum  should  be  levied,  as  they  had 
done  in  regard  to  some  other  articles.  Accordingly,  the  duty  was 
advanced  by  the  act  of  182S,  till  it  should  attain  the  rate  of  60  dol- 
lars the  ton,  equal  to  a  duty  of  40  to  GO  per  cent,  on  the  two  quali- 
ties of  outshot  and  clean  hemp. 

This,  certainly,  is  a  burthensome  tax  on  the  consumers  of  hemp, 
but  infinitely  less  so  than  the  duties  on  sugar,  iron,  cotton,  and  wool- 


29 

lens,  which  have  been  most  zealously  supported  in  Congress  by  the 
delegates  from  the  Northern  manufacturing  Stales,  while  the  hemp 
duty  was  resisted  by  the  New  England  delegation,*  at  the  very  mo- 

*  This  was  one  of  the  taxes  complained  of  by  the  New  England  delegation  as 
the  effect  of  Southern  malice.  It  is  very  true  thai  many  of  the  Southern  mem- 
bers, when  they  found  the  tariff  of  L828  could  aot  be  resisted,  joined  the  West- 
ern delegates  in  support  of  thai  duty,  upon  the  principle  that  if  the  sysUnal  «C 

high  duties  must  prevail,  it  was  just  thai  the  farmers  of  the  Middle  a  tic' "Western 
Slates  should  derive  some  benefit  from  it,  as  Well  as  the  iron  masters  and  cotton 
and  woollen  manufacturers,  whose  monopolies  are  protected  by  more  than  dou-^ 
ble  the  rate  of  duties  granted  by  the  act  of  1828  to  the  bemp-groWefs.  Hut 
the  augmented  duties  granted  by  the  act  of  1828,  on  hemp,  Wool,  molasses,  and 
spirits,  did  not  originate  with  the  delegates  from  the  anti-tariff  States,  but  were 
advocated  in  the  earliest  stages  of  the  "  American  System,"  by  the  most  influ- 
ential delegates  from  the  Middle  and  Western  States,  who  taxed  the  delegates 
from  the  Eastern  States  with  gross  inconsistency  and  injustice,  in  resisting  a 
moderate  addition  to  the  protecting  duties  on  agricultural  staples,  while  they 
claimed  for  their  own  constituents  infinitely  higher  rates  of  protection.  The 
following  extract  from  a  Bpeech  of  .Mr.  Buchanan,  member  of  Congress  from 
Pennsylvania,  will  show  his  feelings  and  opinions  in  relation  to  the  conduct  of 
the  Eastern  members  of  Congress,  some  of  whom  were  themselves  deeply  con- 
cerned in  articles  of  manufacture  enjoying  the  benefit  of  protecting  duties-  of 
2~>  to  '200  per  ant.,  which  have  since  been  greatly  increased,  while  others  were 
dependent  for  their  political  elevation  upon  those  who  were  still  more  largely 
concerned  in  the  favored  branches  of  manufacturing. 

•■  Although  every  good  man  must  deplore  the  excessive  use  of  ardent  spirits 
in  this  country,  yet  it  is  the  clearest  dictate  of  policy,  if  the  article  must  be  used, 
that  of  domestic  origin  ought  to  be  preferred.  In  proportion  as  you  substitute 
the  use  of  whiskey  tor  foreign  spirits,  in  the  same  proportion  do  you  increase 
the  demand  and  the  price  for  the  grain  of  the  farmer.  Most  persons  in  this  as- 
sembly will  be  astonished  to  hear,  that  we  import  annually  between  .r>  and 
G,000,000  of  gallons  of  foreign  spirits,  which  cost  between  two  millions  and  two 
millions  and  a  half  of  dollars.  The  total  value  of  the  flour  which  we  exported 
from  this  country,  even  before  we  lost  the  British  West  India  trade,  did  not  exceed 
double  the  value  of  the  spirits  imported.  If  the  use  of  whiskey  were  substituted 
throughout  the  United  Slates,  lor  that  of  foreign  spirits,  it  would  open  a  market 
for  the  grain  of  <  ur  tanners,  better  than  any  foreign  market  in  the  world. 

"The  Tariff  of  1824,  which  afforded  additional  protection  to  almost  every 
other  interest  in  the  country ,  contained  no  provision  in  favor  of  the  growers 
of  grain.  It  did  not  increase  the  duty  upon  foreign  sp;rits.  That  duty  now  re- 
mains a.s  it  was  established  by  the  Tariff  of  181G. 

'•  The  friends  of  the  Woollen  Bill,  Opposed  with  equal  vigor  and  with  equal 
success,  any  increase  of  the  duty  upon  foreign  hemp.  It  is  most  strangle,  but  it 
is  not  the  less  true,  that  the  American  navy— our  bulwark  and  our  defence,  is 
exclusively  supplied  with  hemp  from  Russia.  We  are  the  most  agricultural 
people  upon  earth,  and  yet  we  depend  up  in  a  foreign  nation  for  the  supply  of 
an  agricultural  product,  without  which  our  navy  could  not  exist.  For  many 
years  it  was  believed,  that  the  hemp  of  Russia  was  super, or  in  quality  to  that  of 
the  United  States.  This  delusion  has  vanished.  It  has  been  ascertained  that 
the  difference  between  the  two  articles  is  occasioned  entirely  by  the  different 
methods,  in  which  they  are  prepared  for  market.  The  Russia  hemp  is  water 
rotted,  the  American  hemp  is  dew  rotted.  There  is  no  country  opon  earth,  in 
which  greater  facilities  are  afforded  for  water  roltuor  hemp,  than  in  Lancaster 
county.  If  its  cultivation  were  encouraged  by  the  Government,  the  home  de- 
niand  would  very  soon  be  supplied  with  the  domestic  article  ;  and  thus  the  half 
million  of  dollars,  which  is  annually  sen:  to  Russia,  would  go  into  the  pockets  of 
our  own  fanners. 

"  We  had  a  right  to  expect,  that  if  our  fanners  should  a<_rree  to  pay  a  heavy 
additional  duty  upon  all  the  woolK  D  goods  which  they  purchased,  for  the  bene- 
fit of  manufactures,  1he  manufacturers   would  not  object  to  a  small  additional 


30 

ment  when  they  voted  for  Mr.  Mallary's  amendment,  because  they 
were  not  satisfied  with  the  duties  on  woollens  recommended  by  the 
-committee  of  manufactures,  averaging  more  than  double  the  rate  of 
the  hemp  duty,  and  bearing  severely  on  one  of  the  most  important 
necessaries  of  life. 

Mr.  Webster,  in  defending  the  tariff  of  1828  (at  least  that  part 
of  it  favorable  to  the  Northern  manufacturers),  said,—"  I  cannot 
conceive  any  thing  more  unwise,  or  ill  judged  than  this  appears  to 
me  to  be.  The  duty  on  hemp  is  already  35  dollars  per  ton,  and  the 
bill  proposes  a  progressive  increase  till  it  shall  reach  GO  dollars. 
This  will  be  absolutely  oppressive  on  the  shipping  interest,  the  great 
consumers  of  the  article.  When  this  duty  shall  have  reached  its 
maximum,  it  will  create  an  annual  charge  of  at  least  100,000  dollars, 
falling,  not  on  the  aggregate  of  the  commercial  interest,  but  on  the 
ship  owner.  The  navigation  of  the  country  has  already  a  hard  struggle 
to  sustain  itself  against  foreign  competition  ;  and  it  is  singular  enough 
that  this  interest,  which  is  so  severely  tried,  which  pays  so  much  in 
duties  on  hemp,  duck  and  iron,  and  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  put 
under  new  burthens,  is  the  only  interest  which  is  subject  to  a  direct 
tax  by  a  law  of  Congress.     The  tonnage  duty  is  such  a  tax." 

duty  upon  foreign  spirits  and  upon  foreign  hemp- — for  the  benefit  of  agriculture. 
We  thought  this  was  no  more  than  a  just  reciprocity;  but  we  found  that  the  Re- 
presentatives of  the  Eastern  manufacturers  were  of  a  different  opinion. 

"  A  motion  was  made  by  myself,  that  the  Woollen  Bill  should  'be  recommitted 
to  the  Committee  on  Manufactures,  with  instruction  so  to  amend  the  same,  as 
to  make  the  duties  on  the  importation  of  foreign  Woollen  goods  and  foreign 
wool,  commence  at  the  same  time  ;  and  to  make  (he  duties  the  same  on  foreign 
wool,  whether  imported  upon  the  skin  or  not  ;  also  to  increase  the  duty  on  im- 
portation of  foreign  spirits  not  less  than  ten  cents  per  gallon  ;  also  to  increase 
the  duty  on  the  importation  of  foreign  hemp  not  less  thin  five  dollars  per 
ton.' 

"No  question  was  ever  taken  upon  this  motion.  A  member  from  New  Hamp- 
shire rose  and  moved  the  previous  question,  which  was  sustained  by  the  House  and 
put  an  end  to  all  amendment  and  to  all  debate.  The  vote  was  102  tof)8.  Every 
Representative  from  Nvw  England,  except  one,  voted  for  the  previous  question. 
Only  eight  of  the  Representatives  from  Pennsylvania  voted  in  favor  of  it,  the 
remaining  eighteen  voting  against  it. 

"  The  friends  of  the  Woollen  Bill  have  often  said,  Let  us  now  protect  wool  and 
woollens,  and  afterwards  we  will  protect  other  articles.  1  ask,  have  we  any 
reason  to  hope,  that  after  we  shall  have  afforded  them  the  protection  which  they 
demand,  they  will  assist  us  in  obtaining  additional  duties  for  the  benefit  of  the 
grain,  and  hemp,  and  manufactures  of  Pennsylvania.  If  they  will  not  now  vote 
f,,r  an  additional  duty  upon  any  of  these  articles,  when  they  have  so  much  at 
stake,  will  they  generously  and  voluntarily  give  it  to  us,  without  any  equivalent, 
after  they  ha-. e  obtained  all  they  desired  ?  All  our  experience  is  at  war  with 
such  a  supposition."- — Mr.  Buchanan's  Speech  at  Lancaster,  lt-'27. 

The  ignorance  evinced  by  this  gentleman,  in  the  extracts  we  have  given,  and 
in  other  parts  of  his  speech,  would  be  discreditable  to  any  man  of  education  out 
of  the  <  onjness,  where  the  standard  of  knowledge  frequently  appears  to  be  as 
low,  as  that  of  the  political  morality  on  which  some  of  its  acts  are  founded.  Mr. 
Buchanan  is  consistent,  however,  in  maintaining  that  the  staples  of  fanners  are 
as  much  entitled  to  governmental  bounties  as  the  productions  of  the  manufac- 
turers. Tin'  whole  system  is  absurd,  and  unjust,  and  unconstitutional  ;  but  there 
would  be  some  satisfaction  to  the  sufferers  to  see  the  evils  impartially  distributed, 
an  the  nation  might,  in  that  case  the  sooner  be  cured  of  the  delusion  under 
which  it  is  now  suffering. 


31 

With  regard  to  the  ship-owners,  it  is  true  that  they  are  heavily 
taxed  ;  and  yet  Mr.  Webster,  who  reprobates  with  so  much  justice 
and  feeling  an  excessive  duty  on  this  article,  which  he  estimates  at 
100,000  dollars,  gave  a  most  efficient  support  to  an  act,  which,  be- 
sides diminishing  the  employment  of  our  shipping,  imposes  an  an- 
nual tax  on  our  ship-owners  of  nearly  three  millions  of  dollars,  and 
founded  on  principles,  too,  which  he  had  declared  were  "  absurd, 
unjust  and  inconsistent  with  the  principles  of  our  Constitution,  and 
with  sound  policy,"  and  as  tending  in  their  operation  "to  favor 
great  capitalists  rather  than  personal  industry,  or  the  owners  of  small 
capitals — to  encourage  the  practice  of  smuggling — and  to  diminish 
the  industry,  impede  the  prosperity,  and  corrupt  the  morals  of 
the  people." 

The  remarks  of  Mr.  Webster  are  just,  as  regards  the  hemp  tax. 
But  upon  what  principles  of  consistency  or  justice,  or  of  due  regard, 
not  merely  to  that  gentleman's  manufacturing  constituents,  but  to 
his  national  constituents,  could  he  complain  of  a  protecting  tax  of 
100,000  dollars  in  favor  of  the  hemp-growers,  while  he  advocated 
duties  averaging  at  least  100  per  cent,  on  cottons,  woollens,  iron 
and  sugar,  which  involve  an  annual  tax  of  at  least  five  millions  on 
the  hemp-growing  districts?  If  the  principle  of  protecting  the 
wealthy  men  concerned  in  the  monopolies  of  iron,  sugar,  cotton  and 
woollen  manufactures  by  duties  of  25  to  200  per  cent.,  be  a  wise 
and  just  principle  to  act  upon,  can  the  benefit  of  that  principle  be 
withheld  from  the  less  affluent  farmers  of  the  Western  States,  espe- 
cially when  they  ask  for  a  much  lower  rate  of  protection  ? — a  tax,  too, 
which,  instead  of  bearing  on  the  consumption  of  at  least  one  hundred 
and  fifty  millions  in  value  of  the  first  necessaries  of  life,  affects  the 
consumption  of  only  about  one  million  of  dollars  in  value  of  agricul- 
tural produce — such  being  about  the  amount  of  foreign  hemp  con- 
sumed prior  to  the  augmentation  of  duty  in  1828. 

Mr.  Webster  notices,  with  much  feeling,  the  difficulties  which  the 
navigating  interest  of  this  country  had  to  encounter  in  sustaining  it- 
self against  foreign  competition.  With  these  correct  views  of  the 
existing  policy,  and  his  well-known  regard  to  the  commercial  and 
navigating  interests  of  the  country,  which  he  formerly  so  ably  de- 
fended, it  is  equally  a  matter  of  surprise  and  regret  that  he  should 
have  been  more  instrumental  than  perhaps  any  other  individual  in 
the  nation,  in  the  enactment  of  a  law  more  calculated  to  lessen,  if 
not  annihilate,  the  commerce  and  navigation  of  a  great  country,  than 
any  that  has  before  been  passed  by  any  government,  assuming  to  be 
influenced  by  motives  of  sound  policy  and  a  just  regard  to  the  rights 
of  all  classes  of  the  community. 

It  is  not,  however,  the  foreign  competition  which  the  ship-owners 
and  merchants  have  principally  to  fear  ;  since,  placed  on  as  favora- 
ble a  footing  as  their  comparatively  untaxed  rivals  (the  British  ship- 

N0.  XI.  5 


32 

owners  and  merchants),  they  would  defy  competition.     It  is  the  un- 
friendly and  unjust  conduct  of  our  own  government  in  heaping  tax 
upon  tax,  restriction   upon  restriction,  that  has    weighed   down  the 
interests  of  these  neglected  and  injured  classes,  as  has  been  proved 
by  authentic  documents  exhibiting  a  decline  in  both  commerce  and 
navigation  of  from  40  to  50  per  cent.,  since  the  commencement  of 
the  restrictive   system ; — a  decline  which  is  the  immediate   conse- 
quence of  its  destructive   regulations.     It  is,  we  repeat,  of  the  un- 
wise, unjust,  and  unconstitutional  acts  of  our  own  government  that 
the  merchants   and  ship-owners  have  to  complain,  and  not  of  the 
competition  of  their  foreign  rivals,  who  have  always  been  distanced 
in  the  race  with  their  American  competitors,  when,  relying  on  their 
own  skill  and  enterprise,  they  have  been  left  untrammelled,  and  un- 
taxed by  "  protecting  systems,"  the  effect  of  which,  as  Mr.  Web- 
ster has  truly  said,  was  to  "diminish  the  industry,  impede  the  pros- 
perity, and  corrupt  the  morals  of  the  people  ;" — and  it  may  be  ask- 
ed, for  what  ?     Why,  as  we  are  told  by  that  gentleman,  to  favor 
"  great  capitalists,"  who,  not  content  with  the  common  advantages 
which  wealth  usually  and  fairly  confers  on  its  possessors,  are  grasp- 
ing at  the   fruits  of  injustice,  because  sanctioned  by  a  law  which 
many  of  the  very  capitalists  who  now  partake  of  its  fruits,  had  de- 
clared to  be  unjust,  and  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  Constitution ; 
and  since  denounced,  by  some  of  the  most  influential  advocates  of 
the  "American  System,"  as  "  the  result  of  a  political  compromise, 
and  a  corrupt  bargain,"  and,  as  is  remarked  by  Mr.  Niles,  "  rather 
intended  to  benefit  the  manufacturers  of  a  President,"  than  to  aid 
those  manufacturers  whose  interests  the  Tariff  of  1828  affected  to 
promote. 

We  are  aware  that  these  remarks  on  the  conduct  of  the  party  that 
advocated  the  restrictive  system  as  far  as  it  promotes  the  views 
of  that  wealthy  class,  who  are  interested  in  certain  favored  branches 
of  industry,  and  who  resist  its  application  to  all  other  interests — may 
appear  irrelevant  to  the  point  under  discussion.  But  our  object  has 
been  to  show  that  there  is  no  community  of  interest,  of  feeling,  or 
of  views,  between  the  privileged  manufacturers*  of  the  Eastern 

*  Injustice  to  the  manufacturers,  we  repeat  that  the  most  intelligent  of  them 
have  been  uniformly  opposed  to  high  duties.  The  following  extract  from  a  Me- 
morial to  Congress  in  lb'24  against  an  increase  of  duties,  expresses  the  opinions 
of  some  of  those  most  largely  concerned  in  manufactures  of  cotton  and 
wool. 

"  Happily  in  the  present  case,  intelligent  individuals  of  both  the  manufacturing 
and  mercantile  classes  concur  in  the  opinion,  that  cm  ssin  duties,  even  on  foreign 
articles,  similar  to  those  manufactured  in  tin  I  rated  States,  would  materially  in- 
jure the  latter  class,  as  well  as  other  classes  connected  with  and  dependent  up- 
on them,  without  mi  equivalent  benefit  in  theformer. — 

"  Inconsistent  and  injudicious  as,  in  the  opinion  <>f  your  committee,  are  most 
of  the  details  of  the  bill  before  us,  they  are  insignificant,  compared  with  the 
principle  on  which  it  is  founded.     This  appears  to  be  in  substance — that  in  order 


33 

and  some  few  counties  of  the  Middle  States,  and  the  agricultural 
population  of  the  Western  and  Middle  States.  A  careful  review  of 
the  Congressional  proceedings  in  relation  to  the  tariff  question  will 
show,  that  the  interests  of  the  latter  have  always  been  sacrificed  to 
the  former,  who  have,  in  fact,  for  some  years  past,  influenced  and 
controlled  the  national  legislation. 

The  benefit  which  the  hemp-growers  supposed  they  should  de- 
rive from  the  increased  duty  of  GO  dollars  the  ton  on  that  article, 
was  from  the  expectation  of  a  more  extensive  demand,  and  conse- 
quently an  increased  price.  One  object  of  the  act  of  1828  was,  by 
an  exclusion  of  foreign  hemp,  to  compel  the  merchants  to  use  the 
domestic  article  ;  and  it  is  obvious  that,  unless  that  object  is  accom- 
plished, the  farmers  of  the  Western  States  derive  no  benefit  from 
that  act.  But  we  contend,  that  there  has  been  no  increased  con- 
sumption by  the  merchants,  and  that  so  far  from  the  price  of  do- 
mestic hemp  having  advanced,  it  is  only  worth  about  half  the  price 
it  bore  before  the  commencement  of  the  protecting  system. 

The  importation  of  foreign  hemp  has  diminished,  but  this  has 
arisen,  1st.  From  a  decline  in  our  shipping.  2d.  From  the  sub- 
stitution of  foreign  cordage,  partly  imported,  and  partly  procured 
abroad  for  the  sake  of  avoiding  the  tax  on  hemp.  3d.  By  the  im- 
portation of  an  Asiatic  production  superior  even  to  Russian  hemp, 
and  which  pays  a  duty  of  15  per  cent.,  instead  of  a  duty  of  40  to 
60  per  cent.,  levied  on  other  foreign  hemp ; — paid  for,  too,  with  the 
precious  metals,  which,  according  to  the  most  distinguished  partisans 
of  the  vested  interests,  is  such  an  unpatriotic  and  ruinous  operation 
to  the  country— gold  and  silver  being,  in  their  estimation,  the  only 
commodities  which  can  be  considered  as  real  wealth. 

to  bring  into  existence,  and  to  encourage  certain  branches  of  domestic  industry, 
it  is  expedient  to  check  or  destroy  certain  other  brandies  of  thai  industry,  or  to 
embarrass,  if  not  overturn  long  established  occupations,  for  the  sake  of  building 
up  and  extending  new  ones.  But  as  national  profit  is  1ml  the  aggregate  of  the 
profits  of  individuals,  we  cheerfully  submit  the  question  to  every  intelligent 
mind,  whether  it  is  possible  for  any  government  to  be  so  well  acquainted  with 
the  private  concerns  of  individuals,  as  to  determine  the  direction  of  individual 
industry,  and  to  decide  which  of  the  varied  employments  of  domestic  indus- 
try its  citizens  shall  be  compelled  to  choose. 

Israel  Thobs  dikk, 
Is  \  \(   WiNSLOWj 
i  i  Mat, 

Jo     R   TAPP  IN, 

Georg]    B 

Amcs   Lawki  M  I  . 

Willi  vm  Goddaro, 

1 1 1  sk*  Waihwrigh  l  • 
Wn  i  i  \ m  St  .:<.. is, 

JOSHI    v   Bl   \M  , 

Thomas  P  Coshiho, 
foHH  A.  Low]  i  i 


;:lttt." 


34 

The  quantity  of  hemp  imported  from  the  Baltic,  from  which 
quarter  our  principal  supply  is  derived,  was  in  the  years  1815  to 
1820,  2300  to  5700  tons.  In  1822  the  importation  extended  to 
8500  tons ;  but  that  being  an  over  supply,  the  following  year  the 
importation  was  but  2530  tons.  From  1824  to  1828,  inclusive, 
the  average  importation  was  4478  tons.  In  1829  (a  year  so  dis- 
astrous to  commerce  and  navigation,  principally  from  the  operation 
of  the  high  duties  imposed  in  1824,  and  so  considerably  increased 
in  1S28),  our  importation  of  Russian  hemp  declined  to  2400  tons, 
and  in  1830  to  less  than  1600  tons.  It  was  during  this  period  that 
our  navigation  declined  so  rapidly,  though  that  fact  was  not  appa- 
rent in  the  Treasury  returns,  owing  to  the  tonnage  being  uncorrect- 
ed for  some  years  and  exhibiting  nearly  half  a  million  of  tons  more 
than  the  true  tonnage.  The  importation  of  Baltic  hemp  for  the 
present  year,  from  the  improvement  in  navigation  and  commerce 
after  four  years  of  depression,  it  is  supposed,  will  be  from  3500  to 
4000  tons. 

During  this  period  large  importations  have  been  made  of  the 
substitute  for  hemp,  before  referred  to,  the  production  of  the  Phi- 
lippine Islands,  and  usually  imported  from  Manilla,  which,  paying, 
as  it  does,  only  about  one  third  of  the  duty  imposed  on  Russian 
hemp,  necessarily  interferes  with  the  domestic  article.  It  is  the  im- 
portation of  foreign  cordage,  however,  which  has  principally  defeated 
the  object  of  the  hemp-growers,  as  may  be  seen,  by  a  comparison 
of  imports  of  earlier  with  those  of  later  years. 

The  average  importation  of  foreign  cordage  from  1819  to  1821, 
inclusive,  was  less  than  250,000  lbs.,  while  from  1828  to  1830,  in- 
clusive, the  average  quantity  imported  is  upwards  of  2,000,000  lbs. 
In  addition  to  the  imported  cordage,  a  very  large  quantity,  for 
the  supply  of  our  vessels  abroad,  has  been  purchased  in  foreign 
ports,  as  well  as  other  high  dutied  articles  necessary  for  the  equip- 
ment of  ships,  with  a  view  of  saving  the  taxes  imposed  by  the  ship- 
destroying  act  of  1828. 

The  result  of  an  inquiry  into  this  matter  has  satisfied  us,  that  there 
are  not  1000,  and  probably  not  500  tons  more  of  domestic  hemp 
consumed  than  there  would  have  been,  had  the  Tariff  of  1828  not 
been  enacted.  The  duty  was  intended  to  compel  the  proscribed 
ship-owners  to  use  it ;  but  neither  have  they,  nor  will  they  make 
use  of  an  article  unfit  for  their  purposes,  while  they  can  find  substi- 
tutes which  as  yet  have  escaped  the  notice  of  the  manufacturers  of 
tariffs. 

The  domestic  hemp  is  not  only  avoided  by  the  merchants,  but  it 
is  rejected  by  the  Government — by  the  agents  of  this  and  the  pre- 
ceding administration,  who  have  encouraged  the  passage  of  laws, 
or  a  perseverance  in  laws  already  enacted,  for  the  purpose  of  fore- 


35 

ing  the  consumption  of  an  article  upon  the  ship-owners,  which  the 
public  agents  think  of  too  inferior  a  quality  for  the  purposes  of  Got  ■ 
eminent. 

The  most  important  point,  however,   remains  yet  to  be  si  ttled  ; 
and  that  is,  the  effect  which  the  protecting  system  has  had  upon  the 
price  of  Western  hemp.    And  here  fortunately  we  can  recur  to  feu 
— facts  which,  on  this  point  as  well  as  others,  demonstrate  equally 
the  evils  of  restriction,  and  the  benefit  of  the  opposite  system. 

The  hemp-growers  were  encouraged  to  believe,  first,  that  the 
act  of  1828  would  secure  to  them  the  whole,  or  nearly  the  whole 
consumption  of  the  United  States  ;  secondly,  as  a  consequence  of 
such  increased  demand,  that  the  price  of  their  staple  would  become 
advanced.  To  ascertain  this  point,  we  refer  to  New  York  prices 
current  of  1831  and  April  181G,  being  three  months  prior  to  the 
operation  of  the  first  protecting  tariff.  We  find  by  the  latter,  that 
the  price  of  American  hemp  in  the  New  York  market,  at  that  period, 
was  190  dollars  the  ton,  while  in  1831  it  is  quoted  at  100  dollars 
the  ton.  On  the  other  hand  the  price  of  Russian  hemp  was  225 
dollars  in  1816,  and,  in  1831,  220  dollars — which  is  about  its  present 
value. 

But  it  may  perhaps  be  urged  against  us,  upon  our  own  principles 
of  accounting  for  the  fall  of  prices,  that  the  article  had  declined  in 
foreign  countries,  in  consequence  of  the  effect  of  our  home  compe- 
tition. But  if  such  had  been  the  fact  in  regard  to  hemp,  the  decline 
in  our  markets  would  have  been  greater  than  5  dollars  the  ton.  It 
so  happens,  however,  that  hemp  is  one  of  the  few  articles  of  com- 
merce which  has  advanced  in  price,  instead  of  having  fallen,  since 
the  origin  of  the  protecting  system.  On  turning  to  a  statement  of 
hemp  in  St.  Petersburg,  furnished  by  several  experienced  merchants 
in  that  trade,  we  find  the  average  cost  of  clean  hemp,  in  1816  and 
1817,  to  have  been  104  dollars  per  ton,  while  for  1829,  1830,  and 
1831,  the  average  price  of  a  similar  quality  is  136  dollars  per  ton. 

Thus,  then,  have  we  demonstrated  by  undeniable  facts,  that  the 
practical  effects  of  the  "  American  System,"  as  regards  the  hemp- 
growers  of  the  Western  States,  have  been  to  lower  the  value  of 
their  staple  ;  and  this  has  been  caused  in  regard  to  hemp,  as  well 
as  many  other  articles,  by  holding  out  inducements  to  a  more  ex- 
tended production,  under  the  delusive  notion  that  the  hemp-grow- 
ers, like  the  owners  of  the  sugar,  iron,  and  woollen  monopolies, 
were  to  have  an  increased  demand  for  their  productions,  through 
the  medium  of  an  impolitic,  unjust,  and  burthensome  tax  on  tho 
commerce  and  navigation  of  the  country. 

While  the  hemp-grower  has  been  thus  deceived  by  the  present 
tariff,  a  large  class  of  industrious  manufacturers,  with  no  capitals 
to  depend  on  for  their  support,  have  been  deprived  of  their  occu- 


36 

pations,  owing  to  the  use  of  foreign  cordage.     Indeed,  there  are 
probably  more  manufacturers  deprived  of  employment  by  the  duties 
of  40  to  150  per  cent,  on  these  two  raw  materials,  hemp  and  iron, 
than  are  actually  benefited  by  the  extreme  duties  imposed  by  the 
mischievous  tariff  of  1828  ;  and  yet  how  often  is  it  proclaimed  to 
the  public,  that  the  advocates  of  the  taxing  system,  the  enemies  of 
free  trade,  are  the  only  friends  of  the  manufacturer.     That  the  ex- 
isting system  may  for  a  time  be  favorable  to  those  who  have  large 
sums  invested  in  the  particular  branches  of  business  which  are  fa- 
vored with  the  bounties  drawn   for  their   support  from  the  pockets 
of  the  people,  we  will  not  deny.     But  we  maintain,  that  the  great 
mass  of  manufacturers,  who  depend  on  small  capitals,  or  upon  man- 
ual labor,  are  as  much  wronged  and  as  much  injured  by  the  exist- 
ing tariff,  as  any  class  whatever,  with  the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the 
farmers  of  the  Middle  and  Western  States,  who,  though  deluded  into 
a  support  of  the  act  of  1828,  by  their  political  agents,  who  had  other 
objects  in  view  than  serving  their  constituents — have  in  truth  been 
the  victims  of  the  non-exportation  policy,  which,  by   diminishing 
the  demand  for  our  agricultural  staples,  must  necessarily  lower  the 
price  of  all  they  have  to  sell,  while  it  raises  the  price  of  all  they  have 
to  purchase ;  and,  in  asserting  this,  we  use  the  very  language  of  an 
authority  held  in  great  respect  by  the  advocates  of  the  anti-commer- 
cial policy,  (we  mean  Mr.  Webster,)  who,  in  the  Faneuil  Hall  reso- 
lutions of  1820,  advocated  if  not  drawn  up  by  him,  said,  "that  the 
effect  of  high  bounties  on  domestic  manufactures  favored  great  cap- 
italists, rather   than  pe7-sonal  industry,    or  the   owners    of  small 
capitals  ; :'  and  that  among  the  obvious  consequences  of  the  system, 
would  be  this,  "  that  the  farmer  would  give  more  than  he  now  does 
for  all  that  he  buys,  and  receive  less  for  all  he  sells." 

In  evidence  of  the  correctness  of  the  principle  laid  down  by  Mr. 
Webster  in.  1820,  and  sanctioned  at  that  time  by  those  who  have 
since  been  drawn  into  a  support  of  the  system  of  bounties  and  taxa- 
tion— not  so  much  from  a  change  of  opinion,  as  a  change  of  position 
— we  say,  in  support  of  that  sound  principle  of  political  economy, 
adduced  by  Mr.  Webster,  namely,  that  restrictions  on  commerce 
lowered  the  value  of  what  the  farmer  had  to  sell,  and  enhanced  the 
cost  of  what  he  had  to  buy ;  we  can  bring  facts  (always  fatal  to  the 
cause  of  injustice)  to  prove,  that  such  has  actually  been  the  effect  of 
the  "  American  System  "  upon  all  or  nearly  all  our  agricultural  pro- 
ductions, as  may  be  seen  by  a  comparison  of  their  prices  prior  to 
the  adoption  of  the  protecting  system  with  the  prices  of  the  pre- 
sent year.  For  this  purpose,  we  again  refer  to  the  New  York  price 
currents  of  January  5,  1831,  and  April,  181G,  from  which  we  will 
extract  the  prices  of  the  leading  articles  of  trade  in  the  New  York 
market  at  those  periods. 


37 

„_,      .  Froe  Trade  Prircs  of  1810.  American  Britem  PrieM  •flttl. 

"  Beef,  mess  to  cargo,        $8  50  to  13  50.       .    .         >i.. 

Beans,  7  bushels,  18  00  M J 

Butter, 19  «'      28 6     •       12A 

Clover  Seed,    .     .   per  lb.        1.1  " II 

Cotton, -21)        .    .    .    .  9     ■       I  I 

Fish,  Cod,  .     .    .    .     ql.    3        "5 l   ;.-,  "2  56 

Shad, bbl.  12        « 8  ;,n 

Mackerel, 12        "11....  ;,  .;-     ■  0 

Flax,      ....         lb.  12  «      

Grain,— Wheat,  .        bush.  1  37  " I   •»  , 

Rye,      .    .       "1       " •    .        to 

Indian  Com,       "         94  " :,; 

Barley,  .     .        "112" 78 

Oats,      .     .        "         57" 27 

Hemp,  ....         ton,    190     " 100 

Lard, lb.         17" 

Hops, "         28 " |  r, 

Leather,     ....        "        22 " 20 

Lumber,     .     .       1000  ft.  15        "30 .15         "20 

Naval  Stores,      .     .  bbl.     :i         '•   3  50 1    12    "      2  50 

Pork, 16       "  23 10         "13 

Deer  Skins,     ...     lb.        30 "       45 8   "  II 

Whiskey,   .     .     .       gall.        (JO " 30 

Tobacco,     .     .     .  100  11).  10       "20 3         "    10 

Tallow, lb.         13" •  7.1 

Wool,  common  qualities,  50  "    1  00 35    "  70" 

From  the  New  York  prices  is  to  be  deducted  the  discount  on 
bank  bills,  as  the  banks  had  not  then  resumed  specie  payments. 
This  discount  in  April,  1816,  was  10 per  cent.  ;  but  in  July  the  dis- 
count fell  to  8  per  cent.  To  equalize  the  prices  of  181 G  witli  the 
specie  value,  an  abatement  of  8  to  10  per  cent,  should  be  made  from 
the  prices  of  1816.  After  making  this  allowance,  however,  it  will 
be  found  that  there  has  been  a  great  decline  in  the  prices  of  all  the 
agricultural  staples,  except  wheat,  which  happened  at  that  time  to 
be  depressed,  in  its  relative  value,  much  below  any  other  sta- 
ple of  the  country,  and  very  much  lower  than  the  price  to  which 
it  had  attained  before  the  close  of  the  year  1S16.  In  truth,  there 
has  been  no  article  of  production  that  has  fallen  more  in  value,  since 
the  protecting  system  commenced,  than  wheat,  at  once  the  most  im- 
portant, and  the  most  valuable  of  our  staples.  This  fact  we  shall 
proceed  to  prove,  by  a  reference  to  a  table  of  prices  of  flour  in  the 
Philadelphia  market  from  1785  to  L830,  which  we  think  may  be 
relied  on,  from  the  respectable  source  whence  it  was  obtained, — 
"  The  Journal  of  Commerce  of  New  York.'1 

All  who  are  familiar  with  the  publications  in  favor  of  th  i 
tive  system,  will  recollect  how  often  the  growers  of  wheat  and  other 
grains,  have  been  called  upon  to  aid  the  "American  System," 
because  it  tended  to  increase  the  price  of  bread-stuffs,  in  consequence 
of  the  immense  consumption  of  the  manufacturing  Stati  -•  "  v\  e  want 
a  home  market  for  our  flour,"  has  been  the  cry  of  the   restriction- 


38 

ists ;  "  and  this,"  say  they,  "  the  high  duty  system  will  give  the 
farmers  of  the  grain-growing  States,  and  consequently  advance  the 
prices  of  their  rye,  wheat,  Indian  corn,  &c." — "  Nothing,'*  says  the 
New  York  Tariff  Address,  "  nothing  can  relieve  the  farming  interest 
of  the  Middle  States,  but  their  own  manufactures,  and  the  manufac- 
tures of  the  Eastern  States." 

The  Address  goes  on  to  state,  that  "  a  million  of  barrels  of  bread- 
stuffs  are  imported  annually  into  the  Eastern  States,"  which  is  at- 
tributed to  the  "  American  System."  In  the  first  place,  the  quantity, 
no  evidence  for  such  an  assertion  being  given,  may  be  exaggerated; 
and  secondly,  a  considerable  portion  is  re-exported  and  forms  part 
of  that  foreign  commerce,  which  it  is  the  object  of  the  leaders  of 
the  tariff  system  to  obstruct,  if  not  annihilate.  The  quantity  re- 
exported from  the  Eastern  States,  would  probably  be  double  or 
treble  what  it  now  is,  but  for  the  tariff,  or,  as  it  may  be  termed  in 
reference  to  commerce,  "  the  non-exportation  system."  Thirdly, 
the  importation  of  bread-stuffs  into  the  Eastern  States  is  so  far  from 
being  a  new  business,  that,  relatively  to  the  population,  as  great 
a  quantity  has,  for  at  least  40  or  50  years,  been  imported  as  at  this 
period.  Fourthly,  supposing  it  to  be  true,  that  a  million  of  barrels 
of  bread-stuffs  are  imported  into  New  England  for  re-exportation 
and  consumption  under  the  present  anti-commercial  system, — there 
is  every  reason  to  believe,  that,  under  a  free  trade  system,  the 
quantity  imported  would  have  been  two  millions  of  barrels,  since  the 
consumption  afforded  by  the  cotton  and  woollen  manufacturers,  who 
are  principally  benefited  by  the  restrictive  policy,  is  by  no  means 
equivalent  to  the  diminished  consumption  of  mechanics,  seamen, 
merchants,  manufacturers  and  others,  not  dependent  on  the  "Amer- 
ican System."  A  system,  that,  as  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Webster,  "  fa- 
vors great  capitalists,  rather  than  personal  industry,  and  which  cor- 
rupts the  morals  of  the  people,"  cannot  be  productive  of  increased 
population,  or  increased  wealth,  and  consequently  has  not  increased 
the  consumption  of  bread-stuffs  where  that  system  prevails. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  gentleman  whose  remarks  we  have  so 
often  quoted  in  defence  of  our  propositions,  has  changed  his  opin- 
ions, and  that  the  weight  of  this  authority  is  now  against  us;  or  that 
ours  is  one  of  those  theories  of  free  trade,  which  is  sound  as  a  theory, 
but  cannot  be  sustained  by  practical  results.  Let  us  then  resort 
to  facts — to  those  facts  which  the  advocates  of  the  national  interests 
are  reproached  for  not  oftencr  producing,  though,  if  such  a  charge  be 
really  true,  our  opponents  ought  not  to  complain,  for  the  exhibition 
of  such  facts  must  be  necessarily  fatal  to  their  theories,  their  asser- 
tions, and  their  pretensions. 

The  first  protecting  tariff  went  into  operation  in  July,1816,  but  did 
not  fairly  show  its  effects  for  twelve  or  eighteen  months.  We  will, 
then,  give  the  prices  for  a  period  of  five  years,  commencing  in  1818, 


30 

and  ending  in  1822,  as  exhibiting  ihe  firsl  effect  of  the  "  AmericM 
System"  on  the  great  staple  ot  the  Western  and  .Middle  Suites, 
whose  industrious  population  have  been  unaccdtintably  seduced  into 

its  support. 

On  referring  to  the  table,  then,  we  find  the  average  price  of  flour 
from  18 1 S  to  1822  inclusive,  in  the  Philadelphia  marki  i  was  $6,63 
the  barrel.     This  may  he  considered  the  ", tmerican  System" price. 

We  will  now  take  the  five  years  prior  to  the  commencement  of  that 
system  in  181G,  beginning  with  the  year  I  8  1 3,  and  <  riding  with  is  17  ; 
and  we  find  the  average  price  ol  Hour  in  the  same  market  to  have 
been  .$'9,54  the  barrel,  which  we  call  the^ree  trade  //rice  A  declino 
from  $9,54  to  $6,63  on  the  whole  crop  of  bread-Stuffs,  estimated 
by  Mr.  Niles,  in  18.>0,  at  22  millions  of  barrels,  would  lower  the  value 
of  this  great  agricultural  staple,  raised  in  that  part  of  the  country,  sixty- 
Jive  millions  of  dollars,  and  still  the  wheat-growers  have  been  told, 
that  the  "American  System"  has  given  them  a  home  market,  and 
raised  (he  price  of  t/icir  produce  ! 

But  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  not  just  to  decide  upon  the  effects  of 
the  "  American  System"  by  so  short  a  trial  of  its  efficacy,  as  the  act 
of  1816  gave  but  a  moderate  protection  to  the  privileged  interests, 
compared  with  the  act  of  1824.  Let  us,  then,  take  the  price  of 
flour  from  1824  to  1828,  when  the  duties  were  raised  much  higher, 
and  examine  the  effect  on  the  price  of  the  article  in  question. 

On  turning  to  the  table,  we  find  the  average  price  of  those  five 
years  to  have  been  $6,2  1  the  barrel,  showing  a  reduction  in  the  value 
of  the  whole  crop  of  bread-stuffs,  of  94  millions  of  dollars,  being  so 
much  less  than  the  crop  would  have  produced,  had  the  free  trade 
prices  of  1816  been  obtained.  In  1829  the  average  price  of  flour 
was  $6,35  the  barrel,  hut  in  1830,  it  had  declined  to  an  average 
of  $4,98,  a  lower  price  than  in  any  year  from  17S5  to  1816. 
Thus,  while  the  money  prices  of  many  of  the  articles  of  produce 
have  greatly  advanced,  the  great  staples,  classed  under  tin1  name  of 
"  bread-stuffs,"  have  actually  been  lower  since  the  commencement 
of  the  "American  System"  th  u  they  were  40  to  50  years  agoj 
for  we  find  that  from  1785  to  17^(.>  the  average  was  $5,36  the 
barrel.  The  world  being  at  that  period  in  a  state  of  general  p"ace, 
there  was  of  course  no  unusual  foreign  demand. 

Now  we  do  not  pretend  to  assert,  that  other  causes  besides  the 
restrictive  and  non-importation  system  have  not  contributed,  with  the 
anti-commercial  policy,  to  lower  the  price  ol'  flour  as  well  as  Other 
agricultural  productions.  But  no  one  can  deny,  that  die  facts  which 
we  have  adduced,  have  refuted  the  unwarrantable  misre|  r<  si  ntationa 
of  the  enemies  of  free  trade,  with  regard  to  die  beneficial  effects  of 
monopolies  and  taxation  upon  the  meat  agricultural  interests  of  the 
nation.  And  at  the  same  time  we  cannot  hut  hope,  that  the  tax-pay- 
ing farmers  who  depend  on  bread-stuffs  for    import,  will  withdraw 

no.  xi.  6 


40 

themselves  from  the  influence  of  those  public  men,  who,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  sustaining  an  unjust  and  unconstitutional  system,*  beneficial 

*  The  restrictive  system,  implying  the  assumption  of  a  power,  on  the"  part 
of  Congress,  of  enacting  laws  for  prohibiting,  by  high  duties  or  otherwise,  the 
importation  of  foreign  commodities,  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  prices  of  simi- 
lar commodities  produced  at  home,  lias  been,  as  we  have  already  shown,  pro- 
nounced to  be  inconsistent  will)  the  principles  of  our  Constitution,  by  some  of  the 
most  eminent  lawyers  and  statesmen  in  New  England. 

The  arguments  on  which  this  opinion  rests  are  familiar  to  the  public,  and 
have  never  been  refuted  An  attempt  has  been  made  to  influence  the  public 
mind  by  a  reference  to  the  authority  of  Mr  Madison.  That  gentleman,  in  his 
letters  to  Mr.  Cabell,  having  taken  a  great  deal  of  pains  to  prove  what  no  one 
has  ever  denied,  namely,  that  Congress  hare  a  right  to  regulate  trade  and  raise 
revenue — it  has  been  most  unreasonably  inferred  that  he  intended  to  sustain  the 
constitutionality  cf  laws  founded  on  the  principle  of  destroying  trade  and  cxtin- 
ffuishiarr  the  rent  sourrrs  of  revenue. 

The  appeal  to  Mr.  MadUon's  authority  for  the  justification  of  an  act  intended 
to  annihilate  both  trade  and  revenue, — because  he  argues  in  favorof  laws  to  pro- 
mole  trade  and  raise  revenue, — affords  a  convincing  proof  of  the  weakness  of  a 
cause,  whose  most  iivenious  advocates  resort  to  such  a  subterfuge  for  its  de- 
fence. 

In  support  of  the  views  entertained  by  the  most  intelligent  men  in  New  Eng- 
land upon  the  point  umW  discussion,  namely  the  right  of  Congress  to  prohibit 
trtsde,  we  now  present  the  reader  with  the  opinions  of  another  great  lawyer  and 
statesman,  the  late  Samuel  Dexter,  as  laid  down  by  him  in  an  argument  in  the 
District  Court  of  Massachusetts,  upon  the  unconstitutionality  of  the  embargo  law 
of  1807. 

In  Mr.  Webster's  speech,  on  Mr.  Foot's  Resolution,  he  thus  alludes  to  this 
gentleman,  "  Mr.  Dexter  was  a  lawyer  and  he  was  a'so  a  statesman.  He  had 
studied  the  Constitution,  when  he  filled  public  stations,  that  he  might  defend  it; 
htf  had  examined  its  principles,  thai  he  might  maintain  them  ;  more  than  all  men, 
or  at  least  as  much  as  any  man,  he  was  attached  to  the  General  Government 
and  to  the  Union  of  the  States.  His  feelings  and  opinions  all  ran  in  that  direc- 
tion. A  question  of  constitutional  lam,  i-~iis  of  all  suhjects  that  one  which  was  Lest 
suited  to  his  tultnis  and  leaning.''' 

We  trust,  after  such  Btrong  expressions  of  confidence  in  the  talents,  learning, 
loyalty,  and  patriotism  of  Mr.  Dexter,  which  all  will  respond  to,  who  were  ac- 
quainted with  his  character  and  his  public  services,  that  his  memory  will  not  be 
defamed,  if  we  show  how  entirely  he  differed  in  his  opinions  and  principles 
from  the  advocates  of  the  existing  policy,  and  how  ably  lie  maintained  some  of 
those  doctrines  now  denounced  as  Southern  doctrines,  Virginia  doctrines,  Caro- 
lina  doctrines. 

"  Of  all  the  means  of  human  industry,"  says  Mr.  Dexter,  "  commerce  is  the 
most  important;  and,  if  it  is  true  that  ■'■  one  of  our  natural  rights  to  procure 
happiness,  then  cemmeret  is  such  ii  right. 

"  tlumnn  life  requires  such  commerce  for  its  support,  and  it  is  one  of  the  pro- 
visiofSs  of  Heaven,  thai  we  shall  exchange  our  productions,  tint  we  may  afford 
each  other  comfort  and  support,  and  that  the  supplies  which  the  bounty  of  Pro- 
vidence gives  !<)  every  pi  ople  sli  >u!d  not  perish  and  be  wasted. 

';  It  is  a!s  i  of  importance  as  respects  the  dissemination  of  knowledge  among  men. 
When  commerce  is  cut  off,  civilized  nations  become  barbarous;  it  is  therefore 
essential  to  civilization.  Look  back  through  the  history  of  the  Eastern  conti- 
nent; the  interior  has  been  inhabited  by  barbarians,  by  the  Tartars  and  other 
savagi  b. 

"To  destroy  commerce,  then,  is  to  destroy  civilization  and  all  the  means  of  in- 
U'llcctual  improvement.  It  is  therefore  an  unalienable  right;  it  is  so  reckoned 
by  theoretical  writers,  and  by  our  several  institutions  which  rank  the  right  of  ac- 
quiring property  among  our  unalienable  rights." 

ffow  it  hat  been  contended  bj  some  of  the  reBtrictionists,  1st.  That  it  is  the  ob- 
ject and  tendency  of  the  prohibitory  policy  to  extend  commerce:  2d.  That  it 
Iihh  actually  extended  our  <■  immerce,  navigation  and  revenue. 

To  the  fir<*t ,  we  answer  that  thu  object  of  the  high  and  prohibitory  duties  is  to 


41 

to  the  few  but  injurious  to  the  many,  have  resorted  to  such  unworthy 
expedients  for  its  support.     Until  this  is  done,  we  fear  the  nation 

lessen  the  importations  of  foreign  goods  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  prices  of  the 
domestic  ones;  and  unless  Buch  Bhould  be  their  result,  they  canuol  accomplish 

the  purpose  for  which  they  were  intended,  and  our  opponents  would  at  once 
join   in  calling  for  their  reduction. 

Now.  if  high  duties  lessen  imports  they  will  necessarily  lessen  exports,  since 
every  tiling  we  import  must  be  paid  for,  either  in  the  products  of  our  soil,  or  in 
something  which  has  been  received  in  exchange  for  those  productions.  The  sec- 
ond proposition  we  have  refuted,  by  proving  from  <  !ustom  I  louse  documents,  that 
our  exports,  imports  and  revenue,  have  all  been  diminished  since  the  protecting 
system  commenced,  and  to  a  much  greater  extent  than  has  been  represented  in 
the  most  exaggerated  statements  of  the  evils  of  the  restrictive  system. 

Again  ;  there  are  some.  who.  admitting  that  our  commerce  and  navigation  have 
declined,  contend  that  it  is  within  the  constitutional  power  of  Congress  to  effect 
a  partial  diminution  of  it.  To  this  we  answer. — if  Congress  have  a  right  to  de- 
stroy half  our  commerce,  or  any  portion  of  it,  their  right  to  utterly  annihilate  it 
cannot  be  disputed.  We  apprehend  no  intelligent  and  reflecting  mind  would 
differ  with  us  on  this  point. 

Now  that  Congress  have  assumed  the  power  to  lessen  some  of  our  most  valu- 
able branches  of  commerce,  no  one  can  pretend  to  deny,  because  the  only  object 
which  the  restrictionists  had  in  view,  in  obtaining  the  act  of  lti2S,  was  to  exclude 
foreign  goods,  in  order  to  keep  down  foreign  competition,  and  thus  raise  the 
prices  of  similar  articles  made  at  home. 

Can  any  one  doubt,  then,  who  is  willing  to  be  guided  by  the  opinions  and  au- 
thority of  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Dexter,  that  the  act  of  ln28  is  a  violation  of  the 
Constitution,  by  depriving  the  nation  of  one  of  their  unalienable  rights — namely 
the  right  of  acquiring  property? — Again,  says  Mr.  Dexter  "  Why,  it  may  be 
asked,  are  these  unalienable  rights?  Because  they  are  the  fund a  mental  princi- 
ples of  all  fire  govt  rnments,  under  which  the  right  to  resist  always  remains  unab- 
rogated. Governments  are  instituted  for  the  good  of  the  governed,  and  not  for 
the  rulers.  All  acts,  then,  contrary  to  these  (inula menial  principles,  are  void. 
A  man  might,  perhaps,  alienate  certain  rights  which  are  denominated  un- 
alienable, if  he  alone  were,  affected  by  it;  but  he  has  no  right  to  bind  his  pos- 
terity by  such  an  act — lie  has  no  right  to  entail  slavery  on  them.  A  man  might 
remove  to  Turkey,  if  he  preferred  that  government;  but  his  choice  would  not 
give  him  a  right  to  sell  his  children  there  for  slaves.  For  these  reasons,  rights  of 
this  high  nature  are  said  to  be  unalienable,  and  they  are  made  so  lor  the 
wisest  reasons  ;  they  are  intended  to  carry  into  effect  the  Divine  laws,  and  to 
promote  the  ends  for  which  man  was  created.  They  cannot,  then,  be  alien- 
ated to  the  magistrate.      The  right  of  acquiring  property  is  one   of  these  rights. 

'  If,  then,  commerce,  is  one  of  these  rights,  and  is  of  the  important  nature  1  have 
described,  is  it  not  a  violation  of  these  general  principles,  to  prohibit  commerce  ? 
especially  foreign  commerce,  which  is  the  most  necessary  and  advantageous  ? — 
If  it  is  true,  then,  that  commerce  is  an  unalienable  Tight,  these  acts  which  prohibit 
it  are  contrary  to  the  fundamental  principles  of  society.''  Again;  "The  right  of 
acquiring  property  is  unalienable.  If  it  is  true,  then,  that  property  is  the  object 
of  civil  society,  is  not  a  violation  of  that  righl  a  violation  of  the  fundamental 
principles  of  society  ?  We  can  imagine  many  cases  for  the  sake  of  argument. 
Suppose  there  should  be  a  prohibition  to  till  the  ground,  in  any  country  where 
there  was  no  written  constitution — is  any  citizen  so  lost  to  all  feeling  as  to  think 
he  ought  to  submit  to  this  ?  On  what  principle  are  we,  then,  told  that  we  are 
bound  to  submit  to  a  prohibition  of  commerce  ?  The  prohibition  is  raid  on  gen- 
eral principles. 

"  If  we  have  not  rights  of  this  nature,  by  what  right  are  we  now  assembled  here 
to  decide  the  greatquestion  before  the  court?  It  was  by  the  application  of  these 
very  principles  to  Great  Britain,  that  we  maintained  the  righl  to  declare  ourselves 
independent.  This  very  prohibition  of  commerce  was  one  of  the  reasons  alleg- 
ed in  our  declaration  of  independence  for  the  separation, — '  for  cutting  off  our 
trade  with  all  the  world.'  This  was  our  foreign  commerce  too  ;  the  very  same 
aggression  of  our  rights  of  which  we  now  complain. 

"  If  these  great  principles  are  now  lost  in  our  citizens,  it  is  became  patriotism 
is  sacrificed  to  party  spirit." 


42 

cannot  be  restored  to  its  former  peace  and  prosperity,  nor  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  Union  be  itself  maintained. 

We  admit,  then,  that  other  causes  have  been  in  operation  to  di- 
minish the  prices  of  agricultural  products,  besides  the  pernicious  sys- 
tem of  restrictions.  But  we  maintain,  in  accordance  with  the  reso- 
lution advocated  by  Mr.  Webster,  that  the  obvious  effect  of  the  high 
duty  system  upon  the  cultivator  of  the  soil,  is,  to  reduce  the  value 
of  all  he  has  to  sell,  and  to  enchance  the  cost  of  all  he  has  to  buy  ;  * 
and  we  have  the  most  entire  conviction  that  the  agricultural  popula- 
tion of  the  United  States  are  some  hundreds  of  millions  poorer  than 
they  would  have  been,  had  the  nation  never  been  allured  from  the 
free  trade  policy — a  policy  established  by  the  first  asserters  of  our 
liberties  and  independence,  maintained  by  Washington  and  his  wise 
and  patriotic  counsellors,  and  persevered  in  by  all  those  statesmen 
who  have  consulted  the  true  interest  and  happiness  of  their  country. 

The  conclusion  of  this  investigation  will  be  reserved  for  a  future 
number  of  this  Exposition. 

These  are  Carolina  doctrines  ;  they  are  Virginia  doctrines  ;  they  were  once 
the  doctrines  of  Massachusetts,  and  if  she  has  deserted  them,  "  it  is,"  to  borrow  the 
language  of  Mr.  Dexter — "  because  patriotism  is  sacrificed  to  the  spirit  of  party," 
or,  what  is  still  worse,  to  the  spirit  of  avarice. 

*  In  addition  to  the  loss  sustained  by  the  agricultural  classes  in  the  reduced 
value  of  their  staples,  consequent  upon  the  exclusive  and  taxing  system,  the 
increased  prices  paid  for  many  of  the  necessaries  of  life,  are  enormous,  if  any  re- 
liance can  be  placed  upon  the  statements  of  a  gentleman  who  enjoys  a  great 
reputation,  and  is  far  from  being  unfriendly  to  the  "  American  System,''  and  has 
been  claimed  of  late  as  one  of  its  supporters.  We  allude  to  Mr.  Justice  Story, 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  who,  in  the  Memorial  drawn  up  bj 
him  for  the  citizens  of  Salem  and  its  vicinity,  in  1S20,  says — "  Why  should  the  far- 
mer, tire  planter,  the  merchant,  and  the  laboring  classes,  be  iaxedfor  the  necessaries 
of  life,  a  sum  equal  to  more  than  one  quarter  part  of  the  whole  expenditures  on 
these  objects,  that  the  manufacturers  may  put  this  sum  into  their  own  pockets  ?'-— 

As  the  duties  on  most  of  the  staple  articles  of  consumption  were  not  half  so 
high  at  the  time  that  Memorial  was  written,  as  they  now  are,  we  are  inclined 
to  think  that  the  ratio  of  taxation,  as  estimated  by  its  author,  was  greatly 
over-rated ;  but  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  taxation  imposed  by  the  act 
of  1828  in  the  form  of  increased  prices  of  iron,  woollens,  salt,  molasses, 
sugar,  oil,  cottons,  lead,  glass,  stationary,  slate,  linen  goods,  &c.  takes  largely 
from  tiie  earnings  of  the  laboring  classes  of  the  community,  without  affording 
even  to  those  who  are  employed  as  laborers  in  the  favored  occupations,  any  com- 
pensation ;  since  they  do  not  participate  in  the  profits  of  those  branches  of  busi- 
ness, nor  receive  more  wages  than  they  would  do,  were  they  engaged  in 
any  other  employments.  The  only  persons,  then,  who  can  gain  by  the  "  Amer- 
ican System,"  are  the  few  thousand  wealthy  men  who  have  large  capitals  in 
manufacturing  establishments — and  who  enjoy  the  profits,  which  monop  dies 
commonly  afford  to  those  in  whose  favor  they  are  established,  but  which  im- 
pose an  unjust  tax  upon  the  people,  analogous  to  the  taxes  which  (.'rent  Britain 
attempted  to  exact  from  her  colonies,  the  resistance  to  which  led  to  our  na- 
tional emancipation  and  independence. 


ERRATA. 

No.  5, — pnjjc  01  %  strike  out  of  the  24th  line,  "  during  foui  of  which  oui  c  immi  rce  was  inlorru]  tad 
In-  riii  embargo." 

jS'o.  6, — page  35,  first  line,  r< . r  "  rates  granted  in  1816,"  read,  "  rates  of  duty  granted  on  cnaurso 
goods  in  1816." 

Ho.  0, — note,  page  I,  la  i  lino,  for  "  if  ii  is  so,"  read  "  if  n  is  not  so." 

No.  9,— note,  page  23,  for  "  the  In  I  I"  poara,"  read  "  1 1 ■*-  last  7  ycatt." 


- 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

Los  Angeles 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


RHTI   , 


1 


RECT  LD-UttE 


JUL  151986 


D-URL 


Form  L9~32m-8,'57(.C8680s4)444 


i  1158  00931  2629 


HF 

175* 

L51e 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
III 


AA    001  165  024    9 


